4.6 Article

Calpain-2 participates in the process of calpain-1 inactivation

期刊

BIOSCIENCE REPORTS
卷 40, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/BSR20200552

关键词

-

资金

  1. KAKENHI [26670166, 18K06236, 26450172]
  2. Takeda Science Foundation
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26450172, 26670166, 18K06236] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Calpain-1 and calpain-2 are highly structurally similar isoforms of calpain. The calpains, a family of intracellular cysteine proteases, cleave their substrates at specific sites, thus modifying their properties such as function or activity. These isoforms have long been considered to function in a redundant or complementary manner, as they are both ubiquitously expressed and activated in a Ca2+-dependent manner. However, studies using isoform-specific knockout and knockdown strategies revealed that each calpain species carries out specific functions in vivo. To understand the mechanisms that differentiate calpain-1 and calpain-2, we focused on the efficiency and longevity of each calpain species after activation. Using an in vitro proteolysis assay of troponin T in combination with mass spectrometry, we revealed distinctive aspects of each isoform. Proteolysis mediated by calpain-1 was more sustained, lasting as long as several hours, whereas proteolysis mediated by calpain-2 was quickly blunted. Calpain-1 and calpain-2 also differed from each other in their patterns of autolysis. Calpain-2-specific autolysis sites in its PC1 domain are not cleaved by calpain-1, but calpain-2 cuts calpain-1 at the corresponding position. Moreover, at least in vitro, calpain-1 and calpain-2 do not perform substrate proteolysis in a synergistic manner. On the contrary, calpain-1 activity is suppressed in the presence of calpain-2, possibly because it is cleaved by the latter protein. These results suggest that calpain-2 functions as a down-regulation of calpain-1, a mechanism that may be applicable to other calpain species as well.

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