4.8 Article

Misfolded proteins impose a dosage-dependent fitness cost and trigger a cytosolic unfolded protein response in yeast

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1017570108

关键词

proteomics; stability; heat shock; evolutionary rate

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [1R01GM088344-01, P50GM068763, GM079536, GM065169]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evolving lineages face a constant intracellular threat: most new coding sequence mutations destabilize the folding of the encoded protein. Misfolded proteins form insoluble aggregates and are hypothesized to be intrinsically cytotoxic. Here, we experimentally isolate a fitness cost caused by toxicity of misfolded proteins. We exclude other costs of protein misfolding, such as loss of functional protein or attenuation of growth-limiting protein synthesis resources, by comparing growth rates of budding yeast expressing folded or misfolded variants of a gratuitous protein, YFP, at equal levels. We quantify a fitness cost that increases with misfolded protein abundance, up to as much as a 3.2% growth rate reduction when misfolded YFP represents less than 0.1% of total cellular protein. Comparable experiments on variants of the yeast gene orotidine-5'-phosphate decarboxylase (URA3) produce similar results. Quantitative proteomic measurements reveal that, within the cell, misfolded YFP induces coordinated synthesis of interacting cytosolic chaperone proteins in the absence of a wider stress response, providing evidence for an evolved modular response to misfolded proteins in the cytosol. These results underscore the distinct and evolutionarily relevant molecular threat of protein misfolding, independent of protein function. Assuming that most misfolded proteins impose similar costs, yeast cells express almost all proteins at steady-state levels sufficient to expose their encoding genes to selection against misfolding, lending credibility to the recent suggestion that such selection imposes a global constraint on molecular evolution.

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

4.8
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