4.6 Article

The phosphatidic acid-binding, polybasic domain is responsible for the differences in the phosphoregulation of lipins 1 and 3

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 292, 期 50, 页码 20481-20493

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M117.786574

关键词

mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR); phosphatase; phosphatidic acid; phosphatidylethanolamine; phosphorylation; di-anionic; lipin; lpin1; lpin3

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 DK101946, R35 GM119536]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lipins 1, 2, and 3 are Mg2+-dependent phosphatidic acid phosphatases and catalyze the penultimate step of triacylglycerol synthesis. We have previously investigated the biochemistry of lipins 1 and 2 and shown that di-anionic phosphatidic acid (PA) augments their activity and lipid binding and that lipin 1 activity is negatively regulated by phosphorylation. In the present study, we show that phosphorylation does not affect the catalytic activity of lipin 3 or its ability to associate with PA in vitro. The lipin proteins each contain a conserved polybasic domain (PBD) composed of nine lysine and arginine residues located between the conserved N- and C-terminal domains. In lipin 1, the PBD is the site of PA binding and sensing of the PA electrostatic charge. The specific arrangement and number of the lysines and arginines of the PBD vary among the lipins. We show that the different PBDs of lipins 1 and 3 are responsible for the presence of phosphoregulation on the former but not the latter enzyme. To do so, we generated lipin 1 that contained the PBD of lipin 3 and vice versa. The lipin 1 enzyme with the lipin 3 PBD lost its ability to be regulated by phosphorylation but remained downstream of phosphorylation by mammalian target of rapamycin. Conversely, the presence of the lipin 1 PBD in lipin 3 subjected the enzyme to negative intramolecular control by phosphorylation. These results indicate a mechanism for the observed differences in lipin phosphoregulation in vitro.

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