4.6 Article

The Thalidomide-Binding Domain of Cereblon Defines the CULT Domain Family and Is a New Member of the beta-Tent Fold

期刊

PLOS COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004023

关键词

-

资金

  1. Max Planck Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite having caused one of the greatest medical catastrophies of the last century through its teratogenic side-effects, thalidomide continues to be an important agent in the treatment of leprosy and cancer. The protein cereblon, which forms an E3 ubiquitin ligase compex together with damaged DNA-binding protein 1 (DDB1) and cullin 4A, has been recently indentified as a primary target of thalidomide and its C-terminal part as responsible for binding thalidomide within a domain carrying several invariant cysteine and tryptophan residues. This domain, which we name CULT (cereblon domain of unknown activity, binding cellular ligands and thalidomide), is also found in a family of secreted proteins from animals and in a family of bacterial proteins occurring primarily in delta-proteobacteria. Its nearest relatives are yippee, a highly conserved eukaryotic protein of unknown function, and Mis18, a protein involved in the priming of centromeres for recruitment of CENP-A. Searches for distant homologs point to an evolutionary relationship of CULT, yippee, and Mis18 to proteins sharing a common fold, which consists of two four-stranded beta-meanders packing at a roughly right angle and coordinating a zinc ion at their apex. A beta-hairpin inserted into the first beta-meander extends across the bottom of the structure towards the C-terminal edge of the second b-meander, with which it forms a cradle-shaped binding site that is topologically conserved in all members of this fold. We name this the beta-tent fold for the striking arrangement of its constituent beta-sheets. The fold has internal pseudosymmetry, raising the possibility that it arose by duplication of a subdomain-sized fragment.

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