4.6 Article

Ectopic RING activity at the ER membrane differentially impacts ERAD protein quality control pathways

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 299, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbc.2023.102927

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Endoplasmic reticulum-associated degradation (ERAD) is a protein quality control pathway that removes misfolded proteins from the ER. Overexpression of ERAD factors inhibits the degradation of specific substrates. This study reveals a potential retrotranslocation mechanism independent of ERAD E3 complexes.
Endoplasmic reticulum-associated degradation (ERAD) is a protein quality control pathway that ensures misfolded pro-teins are removed from the ER and destroyed. In ERAD, membrane and luminal substrates are ubiquitylated by ER-resident RING-type E3 ubiquitin ligases, retrotranslocated into the cytosol, and degraded by the proteasome. Over-expression of ERAD factors is frequently used in yeast and mammalian cells to study this process. Here, we analyze the impact of ERAD E3 overexpression on substrate turnover in yeast, where there are three ERAD E3 complexes (Doa10, Hrd1, and Asi1-3). Elevated Doa10 or Hrd1 (but not Asi1) RING ac-tivity at the ER membrane resulting from protein over-expression inhibits the degradation of specific Doa10 substrates. The ERAD E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme Ubc6 becomes limiting under these conditions, and UBC6 over-expression restores Ubc6-mediated ERAD. Using a subset of the dominant-negative mutants, which contain the Doa10 RING domain but lack the E2-binding region, we show that they induce degradation of membrane tail-anchored Ubc6 independently of endogenous Doa10 and the other ERAD E3 complexes. This remains true even if the cells lack the Dfm1 rhomboid pseudoprotease, which is also a proposed retro-translocon. Hence, rogue RING activity at the ER membrane elicits a highly specific off-pathway defect in the Doa10 pathway, and the data point to an additional ERAD E3-independent retrotranslocation mechanism.

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

4.6
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