4.7 Review

Urm1: A Non-Canonical UBL

期刊

BIOMOLECULES
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biom11020139

关键词

2-thiolation; tRNA modification; thiocarboxylate; rhodanese; sulfur-carrier protein; non-canonical UBL; ubiquitin-like protein

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [(SNSF): SNSF [310030_184947]]
  2. Canton of Bern

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urm1 is a molecular fossil with characteristics of both classical UBLs and bacterial SCPs. Its main function is to modify tRNA, and the absence of Urm1 can increase stress sensitivity. Studies on Urm1 can provide insights into the evolution of protein conjugation and sulfur-carrier systems.
Urm1 (ubiquitin related modifier 1) is a molecular fossil in the class of ubiquitin-like proteins (UBLs). It encompasses characteristics of classical UBLs, such as ubiquitin or SUMO (small ubiquitin-related modifier), but also of bacterial sulfur-carrier proteins (SCP). Since its main function is to modify tRNA, Urm1 acts in a non-canonical manner. Uba4, the activating enzyme of Urm1, contains two domains: a classical E1-like domain (AD), which activates Urm1, and a rhodanese homology domain (RHD). This sulfurtransferase domain catalyzes the formation of a C-terminal thiocarboxylate on Urm1. Thiocarboxylated Urm1 is the sulfur donor for 5-methoxycarbonylmethyl2-thiouridine (mcm(5)s(2)U), a chemical nucleotide modification at the wobble position in tRNA. This thio-modification is conserved in all domains of life and optimizes translation. The absence of Urm1 increases stress sensitivity in yeast triggered by defects in protein homeostasis, a hallmark of neurological defects in higher organisms. In contrast, elevated levels of tRNA modifying enzymes promote the appearance of certain types of cancer and the formation of metastasis. Here, we summarize recent findings on the unique features that place Urm1 at the intersection of UBL and SCP and make Urm1 an excellent model for studying the evolution of protein conjugation and sulfur-carrier systems.

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