4.6 Article

Surfactant Protein A2 Mutations Associated with Pulmonary Fibrosis Lead to Protein Instability and Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 285, 期 29, 页码 22103-22113

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M110.121467

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NHLBI) [HL093096]
  2. Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
  3. National Institutes of Health [HL050022]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rare heterozygous mutations in the gene encoding surfactant protein A2 (SP-A2, SFTPA2) are associated with adult-onset pulmonary fibrosis and adenocarcinoma of the lung. We have previously shown that two recombinant SP-A2 mutant proteins (G231V and F198S) remain within the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) of A549 cells and are not secreted into the culture medium. The pathogenic mechanism of the mutant proteins is unknown. Here we analyze all common and rare variants of the surfactant protein A2, SP-A2, in both A549 cells and in primary type II alveolar epithelial cells. We show that, in contrast with all other SP-A2 variants, the mutant proteins are not secreted into the medium with wild-type SP-A isoforms, form fewer intracellular dimer and trimer oligomers, are partially insoluble in 0.5% Nonidet P-40 lysates of transfected A549 cells, and demonstrate greater protein instability in chymotrypsin proteolytic digestions. Both the G231V and F198S mutant SP-A2 proteins are destroyed via the ER-association degradation pathway. Expression of the mutant proteins increases the transcription of a BiP-reporter construct, expression of BiP protein, and production of an ER stress-induced XBP-1 spliced product. Human bronchoalveolar wash samples from individuals who are heterozygous for the G231V mutation have similar levels of total SP-A as normal family members, which suggests that the mechanism of disease does not involve an overt lack of secreted SP-A but instead involves an increase in ER stress of resident type II alveolar epithelial cells.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据