4.6 Article

Regulation of Yeast Nutrient Permease Endocytosis by ATP-binding Cassette Transporters and a Seven-transmembrane Protein, RSB1

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 285, 期 46, 页码 35792-35802

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M110.162883

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [GM75120, GM49825]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ceramide is produced by the condensation of a long chain base with a very long chain fatty acid. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, one of the two major long chain bases is called phytosphingosine (PHS). PHS has been shown to cause toxicity in tryptophan auxotrophic strains of yeast because this bioactive ceramide precursor causes diversion of the high affinity tryptophan permease Tat2 to the vacuole rather than the plasma membrane. Loss of the integral membrane protein Rsb1 increased PHS sensitivity, which was suggested to be due to this protein acting as an ATP-dependent long chain base efflux protein. More recent experiments demonstrated that loss of the genes encoding the ATP-binding cassette transporter proteins Pdr5 and Yor1 elevated PHS tolerance. This increased resistance was suggested to be due to increased expression of RSB1. Here, we provide an alternative view of PHS resistance influenced by Rsb1 and Pdr5/Yor1. Rsb1 has a seven-transmembrane domain topology more consistent with that of a regulatory protein like a G-protein-coupled receptor rather than a transporter. Importantly, an rsb1 Delta cell does not exhibit higher internal levels of PHS compared with isogenic wild-type cells. However, tryptophan transport is increased in pdr5 Delta yor1 strains and reduced in rsb1 Delta cells. Localization and vacuolar degradation of Tat2 are affected in these genetic backgrounds. Finally, internalization of FM4-64 dye suggests that loss of Pdr5 and Yor1 slows normal endocytic rates. Together, these data argue that Rsb1, Pdr5, and Yor1 regulate the endocytosis of Tat2 and likely other membrane transporter 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