4.8 Article

Distinct architecture and composition of mouse axonemal radial spoke head revealed by cryo-EM

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2021180118

关键词

radial spoke; cilia; flagella; cryo-EM; primary ciliary dyskinesia

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFA0503503]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) [XDB37040103, XDB19020102]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31861143028, 31670754, 31872714, 31991192, 31800623]
  4. CAS Major Science and Technology Infrastructure Open Research Projects
  5. CAS-Shanghai Science Research Center [CAS-SSRC-YH-2015-01, DSS-WXJZ-2018-0002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the researchers found that the murine radial spoke (RS) head is compositionally distinct from that of Chlamydomonas, and the core complex contacts the central pair (CP) projections either rigidly or elastically for optimized RS-CP interactions and mechanosignal transduction.
The radial spoke (RS) heads of motile cilia and flagella contact projections of the central pair (CP) apparatus to coordinate motility, but the morphology is distinct for protozoa and metazoa. Here we show the murine RS head is compositionally distinct from that of Chlamydomonas. Our reconstituted murine RS head core complex consists of Rsph1, Rsph3b, Rsph4a, and Rsph9, lacking Rsph6a and Rsph10b, whose orthologs exist in the protozoan RS head. We resolve its cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) structure at 3.2-angstrom resolution. Our atomic model further reveals a twofold symmetric brake pad-shaped structure, in which Rsph4a and Rsph9 form a compact body extended laterally with two long arms of twisted Rsph1 beta-sheets and potentially connected dorsally via Rsph3b to the RS stalk. Furthermore, our modeling suggests that the core complex contacts the periodic CP projections either rigidly through its tooth-shaped Rsph4a regions or elastically through both arms for optimized RS-CP interactions and mechanosignal transduction.

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