two enzymes of this family, Ulp1 and Ulp2. Ulp1 is
required for viability in yeast, whereas Ulp2 is not
essential. They localize to different intracellular
compartments, with Ulp1 being enriched at nuclear
pore complexes, and Ulp2 being diffusely distributed
throughout the nucleus. Mammals on the other hand
have at least six distinct genes for SUMO isopeptidases
(see Table II). Due to alternative splicing, the number of
enzymes expressed is probably much larger. Only a few
of these proteins have been characterized in some detail.
They vary significantly in size and intracellular localiz-
ation. It is plausible to assume that different isopepti-
dases exert different target specificity in large part
through their physical localization. Whether they also
differ in enzymatic properties, such as substrate speci-
ficity or kinetics of cleavage, remains to be seen.
SUMO Target Proteins
Sumoylation as a means to regulate protein function
appears to be quite a common mechanism. Modification
has been documented for more than 70 different target
proteins, and this number is expected to increase
significantly. Based on current knowledge, some gener-
alizations can be made about the nature of the targets,
motifs required for modification, consequences of
modification, and regulation.
KNOWN TARGET PROTEINS
Based on immuno-fluorescence analysis, most targets for
sumoylation are constitutively or transiently associated
with the nuclear compartment. Consistent with this,
most known targets can be associated with nuclear
processes such as chromatin remodeling, DNA repair,
transcription, or nucleocytoplasmic transport (amongst
them are histone deacetylases, topoisomerases, thymine-
DNA glycosylase, PCNA, p53, PML, heat shock
factors, steroid hormone receptors, I
k
B
a
, RanGAP1,
and many others). Other pathways to which SUMO has
been linked are, e.g., progression through mitosis
(mitotic arrest of yeast mutants defective in SUMO
conjugation or deconjugation; yeast septins, topoisome-
rase II and Pds5 are modified specifically in mitosis),
or infection with viruses (examples for viral SUMO
targets are: cytomegalovirus immediate early proteins
IE1 and IE2, adenovirus type 5 E1B-55 kDa, bovine
papillomavirus E1).
CONSENSUS SITES FOR MODIFICATION
In contrast to ubiquitinylation, for which a unifying
motif has not been identified, sumoylation of most
targets seems to be specified by a short consensus
sequence in target proteins. This motif consists of
just four amino acids, CK £ E/D, and includes the
lysine residue that forms an isopeptide bond with
SUMO. C stands for a bulky aliphatic amino acid
residue. Additional structural features are probably
required to ensure accessibility to the conjugation
machinery. Some motifs are present at the very N- or
C-terminal end of a protein, others are flanked by
proline residues that may induce a loop structure.
Consistent with this, RanGAP1, which is an extremely
efficient SUMO target, presents its sumoylation motif
in an accessible loop.
FUNCTIONAL CONSEQUENCES
FOR
MODIFICATION
Similar to phosphorylation, sumoylation seems to have
many different functional consequences that depend on
the specific target protein. Considering SUMO’s size, it is
plausible to assume that conjugation can lead to
masking of binding sites, generation of novel binding
interphases, or conformational changes in the modified
protein. Examples have been reported for changes in
protein–protein or protein –DNA interactions, altera-
tion in subcellular localization, enhanced stability
through antagonizing ubiquitin/proteasome-mediated
degradation, and changes in enzymatic activity.
REGULATION
While some SUMO targets appear to be modified
constitutively, others are sumoylated only during a
specific period of the cell cycle, upon stress, or upon a
specific extracellular signal. Examples are sumoylation
of yeast septins during mitosis, sumoylation of topoi-
somerase upon treatment with DNA-damaging agents,
or Dictyostelium MEK1 sumoylation in response to
chemoattractant. While this suggests the existence of
elaborate regulatory mechanisms, current knowledge is
rather poor. Increased modification of a specific target
may for example be due to changes in the target,
activation of a specific E3 ligase, or relocalization of a
specific isopeptidase. Evidence for cell-cycle-dependent
regulation of E3 ligases and isopeptidases is currently
only available in yeast: (1) fission yeast ulp1 resides at
the NPC during interphase, but is nuclear during
mitosis; (2) baker’s yeast E3 ligase Siz1 is intranuclear
during interphase, but partially relocalizes to the bud
neck in mitosis.
SEE ALSO THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES
Cysteine Proteases † JAK-STAT Signaling Paradigm †
Nuclear Pores and Nuclear Import/Export † Ubiquitin
System † Ubiquitin-Like Proteins † Zinc Fingers
SUMO MODIFICATION 133