4.7 Article

Structural and functional divergence of GDAP1 from the glutathione S-transferase superfamily

期刊

FASEB JOURNAL
卷 34, 期 5, 页码 7192-7207

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1096/fj.202000110R

关键词

ganglioside-induced differentiation-associated protein 1; mitochondria; oxidative stress; structural biology; X-ray crystallography

资金

  1. NIH HHS [S10 OD021540] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R21 NS094860] Funding Source: Medline
  3. HHS | NIH | NIH Office of the Director (OD) [1S10OD021540] Funding Source: Medline
  4. HHS | NIH | National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) [NS094860] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mutations in ganglioside-induced differentiation-associated protein 1 (GDAP1) alter mitochondrial morphology and result in several subtypes of the inherited peripheral neuropathy Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease; however, the mechanism by which GDAP1 functions has remained elusive. GDAP1 contains primary sequence homology to the GST superfamily; however, the question of whether GDAP1 is an active GST has not been clearly resolved. Here, we present biochemical evidence, suggesting that GDAP1 has lost the ability to bind glutathione without a loss of substrate binding activity. We have revealed that the alpha-loop, located within the H-site motif is the primary determinant for substrate binding. Using structural data of GDAP1, we have found that critical residues and configurations in the G-site which canonically interact with glutathione are altered in GDAP1, rendering it incapable of binding glutathione. Last, we have found that the overexpression of GDAP1 in HeLa cells results in a mitochondrial phenotype which is distinct from oxidative stress-induced mitochondrial fragmentation. This phenotype is dependent on the presence of the transmembrane domain, as well as a unique hydrophobic domain that is not found in canonical GSTs. Together, we data point toward a non-enzymatic role for GDAP1, such as a sensor or receptor.

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