4.6 Article

TDP-43 and FUS RNA-binding Proteins Bind Distinct Sets of Cytoplasmic Messenger RNAs and Differently Regulate Their Post-transcriptional Fate in Motoneuron-like Cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 287, 期 19, 页码 15635-15647

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M111.333450

关键词

-

资金

  1. Italian Agency of Research on ALS (AriSLA)
  2. Fondazione CARIPLO [2008-2307]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The RNA-binding proteins TDP-43 and FUS form abnormal cytoplasmic aggregates in affected tissues of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal lobar dementia. TDP-43 and FUS localize mainly in the nucleus where they regulate pre-mRNA splicing, but they are also involved in mRNA transport, stability, and translation. To better investigate their cytoplasmic activities, we applied an RNA immunoprecipitation and chip analysis to define the mRNAs associated to TDP-43 and FUS in the cytoplasmic ribonucleoprotein complexes from motoneuronal NSC-34 cells. We found that they bind different sets of mRNAs although converging on common cellular pathways. Bioinformatics analyses identified the (UG)(n) consensus motif in 80% of 3'-UTR sequences of TDP-43 targets, whereas for FUS the binding motif was less evident. By in vitro assays we validated binding to selected target 3'-UTRs, including Vegfa and Grn for TDP-43, and Vps54, Nvl, and Taf15 for FUS. We showed that TDP-43 has a destabilizing activity on Vegfa and Grn mRNAs and may ultimately affect progranulin protein content, whereas FUS does not affect mRNA stability/translation of its targets. We also demonstrated that three different point mutations in TDP-43 did not change the binding affinity for Vegfa and Grn mRNAs or their protein level. Our data indicate that TDP-43 and FUS recognize distinct sets of mRNAs and differently regulate their fate in the cytoplasm of motoneuron-like cells, therefore suggesting complementary roles in neuronal RNA metabolism and neurodegeneration.

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