4.5 Article

α-Synuclein Disrupts Vesicle Fusion by Two Mutant-Specific Mechanisms

期刊

MOLECULES AND CELLS
卷 45, 期 11, 页码 806-819

出版社

KOREAN SOC MOLECULAR & CELLULAR BIOLOGY
DOI: 10.14348/molcells.2022.0102

关键词

alpha-synuclein; familial mutant; Parkinson?s disease; VAMP2; vesicle fusion

资金

  1. Creative-Pioneering Researchers Program of Seoul National University
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF- 2019R1A2C2090896, NRF-2020R1A5A1019141]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research shows that alpha-Syn mutant oligomers have aberrant effects on VAMP2-embedded vesicles, with specific effects varying depending on the mutant types. This may provide clues to explain the pathological heterogeneity of familial PD.
Synaptic accumulation of alpha-synuclein (alpha-Syn) oligomers and their interactions with VAMP2 have been reported to be the basis of synaptic dysfunction in Parkinson's disease (PD). alpha-Syn mutants associated with familial PD have also been known to be capable of interacting with VAMP2, but the exact mechanisms resulting from those interactions to eventual synaptic dysfunction are still unclear. Here, we investigate the effect of alpha-Syn mutant oligomers comprising A30P, E46K, and A53T on VAMP2-embedded vesicles. Specifically, A30P and A53T oligomers cluster vesicles in the presence of VAMP2, which is a shared mechanism with wild type alpha-Syn oligomers induced by dopamine. On the other hand, E46K oligomers reduce the membrane mobility of the planar bilayers, as revealed by single-particle tracking, and permeabilize the membranes in the presence of VAMP2. In the absence of VAMP2 interactions, E46K oligomers enlarge vesicles by fusing with one another. Our results clearly demonstrate that alpha-Syn mutant oligomers have aberrant effects on VAMP2-embedded vesicles and the disruption types are distinct depending on the mutant types. This work may provide one of the possible clues to explain the alpha-Syn mutant-type dependent pathological heterogeneity of familial PD.

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