3.9 Article

Cingulin and paracingulin show similar dynamic behaviour, but are recruited independently to junctions

期刊

MOLECULAR MEMBRANE BIOLOGY
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 123-135

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09687688.2010.538937

关键词

Cingulin; paracingulin; MDCK; E-cadherin; tight junction; adherens junction; microtubules

资金

  1. Swiss National Fonds [3100A0-116763/1]
  2. Swiss Cancer League [OCS-01916-08-2006]
  3. US National Institutes of Health [DK061931, DK068271]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cingulin (CGN) and paracingulin (CGNL1) are structurally related proteins that regulate Rho family GTPases by recruiting guanine nucleotide exchange factors to epithelial junctions. Although the subcellular localization of cingulin and paracingulin is likely to be essential for their role as adaptor proteins, nothing is known on their in vivo localization, and their dynamics of exchange with the junctional membrane. To address these questions, we generated stable clones of MDCK cells expressing fluorescently tagged cingulin and paracingulin. By FRAP analysis, cingulin and paracingulin show a very similar dynamic behaviour, with recovery curves and mobile fractions that are distinct from ZO-1, and indicate a rapid exchange with a cytosolic pool. Interestingly, only paracingulin, but not cingulin, is peripherally localized in isolated cells, requires the integrity of the microtubule cytoskeleton to be stably anchored to junctions, and associates with E-cadherin. In contrast, both proteins require the integrity of the actin cytoskeleton to maintain their junctional localization. Although cingulin and paracingulin form a complex and can interact in vitro, the junctional recruitment and the dynamics of membrane exchange of paracingulin is independent of cingulin, and vice-versa. In summary, cingulin and paracingulin show a similar dynamic behaviour, but partially distinct localizations and functional interactions with the cytoskeleton, and are recruited independently to junctions.

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

3.9
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