4.7 Article

Cytoskeletal requirements in axonal transport of slow component-b

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 28, 期 20, 页码 5248-5256

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0309-08.2008

关键词

axonal transport; slow transport; slow component-b; alpha-synuclein; synapsin-I; protein complexes

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [P01 AG009215, P01 AG009215-080006, AG09215] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Slow component-b (SCb) translocates similar to 200 diverse proteins from the cell body to the axon and axon tip at average rates of similar to 2-8 mm/d. Several studies suggest that SCb proteins are cotransported as one or more macromolecular complexes, but the basis for this cotransport is unknown. The identification of actin and myosin in SCb led to the proposal that actin filaments function as a scaffold for the binding of other SCb proteins and that transport of these complexes is powered by myosin: the microfilament-complex model. Later, several SCb proteins were also found to bind F-actin, supporting the idea, but despite this, the model has never been directly tested. Here, we test this model by disrupting the cytoskeleton in a live-cell model system wherein we directly visualize transport of SCb cargoes. We focused on three SCb proteins that we previously showed were cotransported in our system: alpha-synuclein, synapsin-I, and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase. Disruption of actin filaments with latrunculin had no effect on the velocity or frequency of transport of these three proteins. Furthermore, cotransport of these three SCb proteins continued in actin-depleted axons. We conclude that actin filaments do not function as a scaffold to organize and transport these and possibly other SCb proteins. In contrast, depletion of microtubules led to a dramatic inhibition of vectorial transport of SCb cargoes. These findings do not support the microfilament-complex model, but instead indicate that the transport of protein complexes in SCb is powered by microtubule motors.

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

4.7
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