4.4 Article

The centriolar satellite proteins Cep72 and Cep290 interact and are required for recruitment of BBS proteins to the cilium

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF THE CELL
卷 23, 期 17, 页码 3322-3335

出版社

AMER SOC CELL BIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1091/mbc.E12-02-0134

关键词

-

资金

  1. Royal Society
  2. Royal Holloway Research Strategy Fund
  3. National Science Foundation
  4. Stanford Graduate Fellowship in the Cancer Biology Program
  5. National Institutes of Health [GM52022]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Defects in centrosome and cilium function are associated with phenotypically related syndromes called ciliopathies. Centriolar satellites are centrosome-associated structures, defined by the protein PCM1, that are implicated in centrosomal protein trafficking. We identify Cep72 as a PCM1-interacting protein required for recruitment of the ciliopathy-associated protein Cep290 to centriolar satellites. Loss of centriolar satellites by depletion of PCM1 causes relocalization of Cep72 and Cep290 from satellites to the centrosome, suggesting that their association with centriolar satellites normally restricts their centrosomal localization. We identify interactions between PCM1, Cep72, and Cep290 and find that disruption of centriolar satellites by overexpression of Cep72 results in specific aggregation of these proteins and the BBSome component BBS4. During ciliogenesis, BBS4 relocalizes from centriolar satellites to the primary cilium. This relocalization occurs normally in the absence of centriolar satellites (PCM1 depletion) but is impaired by depletion of Cep290 or Cep72, resulting in defective ciliary recruitment of the BBSome subunit BBS8. We propose that Cep290 and Cep72 in centriolar satellites regulate the ciliary localization of BBS4, which in turn affects assembly and recruitment of the BBSome. Finally, we show that loss of centriolar satellites in zebrafish leads to phenotypes consistent with cilium dysfunction and analogous to those observed in human ciliopathies.

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

4.4
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