4.7 Review

Small Hsps as Therapeutic Targets of Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator Protein

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22084252

关键词

cystic fibrosis; CFTR; sHsps; HspB1; HspB4; HspB5

资金

  1. Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale (INSERM)
  2. French CF association Vaincre La Mucoviscidose (VLM)
  3. l'Etablissement public-Chancellerie des universites de Paris
  4. l'association Mucoviscidose ABCF 2
  5. IMRB fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human small heat shock proteins, including HspB1, HspB4, and HspB5, play crucial roles in regulating cellular processes related to Cystic Fibrosis (CF). While HspB1 and HspB4 promote the degradation of CFTR mutants, HspB5 enhances the transport and function of CFTR mutant at the plasma membrane. Additionally, HspB5 molecules can increase the cellular efficiency of current CF therapeutic molecules.
Human small heat shock proteins are molecular chaperones that regulate fundamental cellular processes in normal and pathological cells. Here, we have reviewed the role played by HspB1, HspB4 and HspB5 in the context of Cystic Fibrosis (CF), a severe monogenic autosomal recessive disease linked to mutations in Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane conductance Regulator protein (CFTR) some of which trigger its misfolding and rapid degradation, particularly the most frequent one, F508del-CFTR. While HspB1 and HspB4 favor the degradation of CFTR mutants, HspB5 and particularly one of its phosphorylated forms positively enhance the transport at the plasma membrane, stability and function of the CFTR mutant. Moreover, HspB5 molecules stimulate the cellular efficiency of currently used CF therapeutic molecules. Different strategies are suggested to modulate the level of expression or the activity of these small heat shock proteins in view of potential in vivo therapeutic approaches. We then conclude with other small heat shock proteins that should be tested or further studied to improve our knowledge of CFTR processing.

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