4.8 Article

Systematically defining selective autophagy receptor-specific cargo using autophagosome content profiling

期刊

MOLECULAR CELL
卷 81, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2021.01.009

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) within the frameworks of the Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology [EXC 2145, 390857198, 1177, 259130777]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigates the formation of protein aggregates in fed conditions due to autophagy deficiency and the contribution of selective autophagy pathways to cellular proteostasis. Different receptors and substrates of aggrephagy are identified, with a systematic mapping of the autophagic degradome targeted by UBD-containing receptors under basal and proteostasis-challenging conditions.
Autophagy deficiency in fed conditions leads to the formation of protein inclusions highlighting the contribution of this lysosomal delivery route to cellular proteostasis. Selective autophagy pathways exist that clear accumulated and aggregated ubiquitinated proteins. Receptors for this type of autophagy (aggrephagy) include p62, NBR1, TOLLIP, and OPTN, which possess LC3-interacting regions and ubiquitin-binding domains (UBDs), thus working as a bridge between LC3/GABARAP proteins and ubiquitinated substrates. However, the identity of aggrephagy substrates and the redundancy of aggrephagy and related UBD-containing receptors remains elusive. Here, we combined proximity labeling and organelle enrichment with quantitative proteomics to systematically map the autophagic degradome targeted by UBD-containing receptors under basal and proteostasis-challenging conditions in human cell lines. We identified various autophagy substrates, some of which were differentially engulfed by autophagosomal and endosomal membranes via p62 and TOLLIP, respectively. Overall, this resource will allow dissection of the proteostasis contribution of autophagy to numerous individual proteins.

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