4.6 Article

Structural Basis of Molecular Recognition of the Leishmania Small Hydrophilic Endoplasmic Reticulum-associated Protein (SHERP) at Membrane Surfaces

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 286, 期 11, 页码 9246-9256

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M110.130427

关键词

-

资金

  1. United Kingdom Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council
  2. Wellcome Trust [077503, 079819, 085464, 068779]
  3. SRCD
  4. European Union [RII3-CT-2004-506008]
  5. BBSRC [BB/G530417/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. MRC [G0800038] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G530417/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Medical Research Council [G0800038] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 57-residue small hydrophilic endoplasmic reticulum-associated protein (SHERP) shows highly specific, stage-regulated expression in the non-replicative vector-transmitted stages of the kinetoplastid parasite, Leishmania major, the causative agent of human cutaneous leishmaniasis. Previous studies have demonstrated that SHERP localizes as a peripheral membrane protein on the cytosolic face of the endoplasmic reticulum and on outer mitochondrial membranes, whereas its high copy number suggests a critical function in vivo. However, the absence of defined domains or identifiable orthologues, together with lack of a clear phenotype in transgenic parasites lacking SHERP, has limited functional understanding of this protein. Here, we use a combination of biophysical and biochemical methods to demonstrate that SHERP can be induced to adopt a globular fold in the presence of anionic lipids or SDS. Cross-linking and binding studies suggest that SHERP has the potential to form a complex with the vacuolar type H+-ATPase. Taken together, these results suggest that SHERP may function in modulating cellular processes related to membrane organization and/or acidification during vector transmission of infective Leishmania.

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