↓ Skip to main content

Suppression of TGFβ-Induced Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition Like Phenotype by a PIAS1 Regulated Sumoylation Pathway in NMuMG Epithelial Cells

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Suppression of TGFβ-Induced Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition Like Phenotype by a PIAS1 Regulated Sumoylation Pathway in NMuMG Epithelial Cells
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0013971
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stuart J. Netherton, Shirin Bonni

Abstract

Epithelial-mesenchymal-transition (EMT) is a fundamental cellular process that is critical for normal development and tumor metastasis. The transforming growth factor beta (TGFβ) is a potent inducer of EMT like effects, but the mechanisms that regulate TGFβ-induced EMT remain incompletely understood. Using the widely employed NMuMG mammary epithelial cells as a model to study TGFβ-induced EMT, we report that TGFβ downregulates the levels of the SUMO E3 ligase PIAS1 in cells undergoing EMT. Gain and loss of function analyses indicate that PIAS1 acts in a SUMO ligase dependent manner to suppress the ability of TGFβ to induce EMT in these cells. We also find that TGFβ inhibits sumoylation of the PIAS1 substrate SnoN, a transcriptional regulator that antagonizes TGFβ-induced EMT. Accordingly, loss of function mutations of SnoN sumoylation impair the ability of SnoN to inhibit TGFβ-induced EMT in NMuMG cells. Collectively, our findings suggest that PIAS1 is a novel negative regulator of EMT and reveal that inhibition of the PIAS1-SnoN sumoylation pathway represents a key mechanism by which TGFβ induces EMT, with important implications in normal development and tumor metastasis.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
France 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 43 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 30%
Student > Master 9 20%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 15%
Chemistry 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 3 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 January 2011.
All research outputs
#15,240,835
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#129,810
of 193,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,094
of 100,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#799
of 979 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 100,450 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 979 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.