4.5 Article

Expanding functions of GIT Arf GTPase-activating proteins, PIX Rho guanine nucleotide exchange factors and GIT-PIX complexes

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELL SCIENCE
卷 129, 期 10, 页码 1963-1974

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jcs.179465

关键词

ArfGAP; GIT1; GIT2; RhoGEF; alpha-PIX; beta-PIX

资金

  1. National Natural Science Funds of China [81572879, 61373057]
  2. Zhejiang Province Natural Science Funds of China [LY14H160004]
  3. National Institutes of Health [NIH R21 MH090556]
  4. Department of Defense [DOD W81XWH-11-2-0112 (DM102564)]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The GIT proteins, GIT1 and GIT2, are GTPase-activating proteins (inactivators) for the ADP-ribosylation factor (Arf) small GTP-binding proteins, and function to limit the activity of Arf proteins. The PIX proteins, alpha-PIX and beta-PIX (also known as ARHGEF6 and ARHGEF7, respectively), are guanine nucleotide exchange factors (activators) for the Rho family small GTP-binding protein family members Rac1 and Cdc42. Through their multi-domain structures, GIT and PIX proteins can also function as signaling scaffolds by binding to numerous protein partners. Importantly, the constitutive association of GIT and PIX proteins into oligomeric GIT-PIX complexes allows these two proteins to function together as subunits of a larger structure that coordinates two distinct small GTP-binding protein pathways and serves as multivalent scaffold for the partners of both constituent subunits. Studies have revealed the involvement of GIT and PIX proteins, and of the GIT-PIX complex, in numerous fundamental cellular processes through a wide variety of mechanisms, pathways and signaling partners. In this Commentary, we discuss recent findings in key physiological systems that exemplify current understanding of the function of this important regulatory complex. Further, we draw attention to gaps in crucial information that remain to be filled to allow a better understanding of the many roles of the GIT-PIX complex in health and disease.

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

4.5
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