4.6 Article

Specific Cleavage of the Nuclear Pore Complex Protein Nup62 by a Viral Protease

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 285, 期 37, 页码 28796-28805

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M110.143404

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AI059467, AI064432]
  2. National Institutes of Health/NCRR COBRE [P20 RR15587]
  3. INBRE [P20 RR016454]
  4. Austrian Science Fund [P20889]
  5. American Cancer Society [RSG 109705]
  6. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P20889] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous work has shown that several nucleoporins, including Nup62 are degraded in cells infected with human rhinovirus (HRV) and poliovirus (PV) and that this contributes to the disruption of certain nuclear transport pathways. In this study, the mechanisms underlying proteolysis of Nup62 have been investigated. Analysis of Nup62 in lysates from HRV-infected cells revealed that Nup62 was cleaved at multiple sites during viral infection. The addition of purified HRV2 2A protease (2A(pro)) to uninfected HeLa whole cell lysates resulted in the cleavage of Nup62, suggesting that 2A(pro) is a major contributor to Nup62 processing. The ability of purified 2A(pro) to cleave bacterially expressed and purified Nup62 demonstrated that 2A(pro) directly cleaves Nup62 in vitro. Site-directed mutagenesis of putative cleavage sites in Nup62 identified six different positions that are cleaved by 2A(pro) in vitro. This analysis revealed that 2A(pro) cleavage sites were located between amino acids 103 and 298 in Nup62 and suggested that the N-terminal FG-rich region of Nup62 was released from the nuclear pore complex in infected cells. Analysis of HRV- and PV-infected cells using domain-specific antibodies confirmed that this was indeed the case. These results are consistent with a model whereby PV and HRV disrupt nucleo-cytoplasmic trafficking by selectively removing FG repeat domains from a subset of nuclear pore complex proteins.

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