4.8 Article

Dithiothreitol causes toxicity in C. elegans by modulating the methionine-homocysteine cycle

期刊

ELIFE
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

eLIFE SCIENCES PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.76021

关键词

S-adenosylmethionine; dithiothreitol; ER stress; methionine cycle; C; elegans

类别

资金

  1. NIH Office of Research Infrastructure Programs [P40 OD010440]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reveals that the redox reagent DTT can induce stress in the endoplasmic reticulum and disrupt protein folding, leading to cellular toxicity. The presence of vitamin B12 in the bacterial diet can alleviate DTT toxicity. Loss of function of the SAM-dependent methyltransferase gene R08E5.3 confers resistance to DTT. Depletion of SAM is identified as the underlying mechanism of DTT toxicity. The unfolded protein response pathway involving IRE-1/XBP-1 is required to counteract DTT toxicity at high concentrations.
The redox reagent dithiothreitol (DTT) causes stress in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) by disrupting its oxidative protein folding environment, which results in the accumulation and misfolding of the newly synthesized proteins. DTT may potentially impact cellular physiology by ER-independent mechanisms; however, such mechanisms remain poorly characterized. Using the nematode model Caenorhabditis elegans, here we show that DTT toxicity is modulated by the bacterial diet. Specifically, the dietary component vitamin B12 alleviates DTT toxicity in a methionine synthase-dependent manner. Using a forward genetic screen, we discover that loss-of-function of R08E5.3, an S-adenosylmethionine (SAM)-dependent methyltransferase, confers DTT resistance. DTT upregulates R08E5.3 expression and modulates the activity of the methionine-homocysteine cycle. Employing genetic and biochemical studies, we establish that DTT toxicity is a result of the depletion of SAM. Finally, we show that a functional IRE-1/XBP-1 unfolded protein response pathway is required to counteract toxicity at high, but not low, DTT concentrations.

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