4.8 Article

2.7 Å cryo-EM structure of ex vivo RML prion fibrils

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-30457-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. UK Medical Research Council [MC_U12316055, MC_UU_00024/5]
  2. Wellcome Trust [202679/Z/16/Z, 206166/Z/17/Z, 106249/Z/14/Z]
  3. Wellcome Trust [106249/Z/14/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The high-resolution structure of mammalian prions has been determined using cryo-EM, revealing a common architecture among different animal species. These findings provide important insights into the propagation of prions and the differences between different prion strains.
High-resolution structures of mammalian prions have remained elusive. Here, Manka et al. report the cryo-EM structure of infectious RML prion fibrils from mice. Structural similarity with recently reported infectious 263K prion fibrils from hamsters now suggests a common prion architecture. Mammalian prions propagate as distinct strains and are composed of multichain assemblies of misfolded host-encoded prion protein (PrP). Here, we present a near-atomic resolution cryo-EM structure of PrP fibrils present in highly infectious prion rod preparations isolated from the brains of RML prion-infected mice. We found that prion rods comprise single-protofilament helical amyloid fibrils that coexist with twisted pairs of the same protofilaments. Each rung of the protofilament is formed by a single PrP monomer with the ordered core comprising PrP residues 94-225, which folds to create two asymmetric lobes with the N-linked glycans and the glycosylphosphatidylinositol anchor projecting from the C-terminal lobe. The overall architecture is comparable to that of recently reported PrP fibrils isolated from the brain of hamsters infected with the 263K prion strain. However, there are marked conformational variations that could result from differences in PrP sequence and/or represent distinguishing features of the distinct prion strains.

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