We propose a model in which Med15 recruitment is affected by weak ABD-TF interactions and C-terminal interactions with Med2/3, leading to Med15’s UAS specificity.
The paradigm says that coactivators are passively recruited to targets by transcription factors (TFs). But is that the whole story?
We explore the Mediator subunit Med15 to ask: Do its activator-binding domains (ABDs) alone drive UAS targeting?
https://t.co/A3yxJXj9zj
How do transcription factors (TFs) that recognize the same DNA motif end up binding different places in the genome? 🧬
We're excited to show you how we tackle this question in our new bioRxiv pre-print!
https://t.co/rwjTaCekCR
Our work suggests that TF specificity isn’t just encoded in DNA motifs or chromatin state...
Intrinsic TF features—especially disordered non-DBD regions—play a central role in determining where it binds, highlighting mechanisms beyond motif or chromatin-based models.
How do transcription factors (TFs) that recognize the same DNA motif end up binding different places in the genome? 🧬
We're excited to show you how we tackle this question in our new bioRxiv pre-print!
https://t.co/rwjTaCekCR
So what’s driving this genomic selectivity?
Our data point to disordered regions outside the DNA-binding domain as major determinants of binding strength and genomic preference, even in the absence of specific cofactors.
(1/8) Still wondering how low complexity intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) guide transcription factors (TFs) to bind in genomes? Previous studies on sequence grammars; our new @MolCell paper takes the next step: de novo design of functional TF IDRs!
https://t.co/qJugw2V3qE
(7/8) We’ve moved from observing and perturbing TF IDRs to engineering them from de novo. We’re excited to exploit these grammars for synthetic biology and to see if these "simple rules" hold true across other species and protein classes! 🚀