4.5 Review

The role of the ubiquitin proteasome system in the memory process

期刊

NEUROCHEMISTRY INTERNATIONAL
卷 102, 期 -, 页码 57-65

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuint.2016.11.013

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quite intuitive is the notion that memory formation and consolidation is orchestrated by protein synthesis because of the synaptic plasticity necessary for those processes. Nevertheless, recent advances have begun accumulating evidences of a high requirement for protein degradation on the molecular mechanisms of the memory process in the mammalian brain. Because degradation determines protein half-life, degradation has been increasingly recognized as an important intracellular regulatory mechanism. The proteasome is the main player in the degradation of intracellular proteins. Proteasomal substrates are mainly degraded after a post-translational modification by a poly-ubiquitin chain. Latter process, namely poly-ubiquitination, is highly regulated at the step of the ubiquitin molecule transferring to the protein substrate mediated by a set of proteins whose genes represent almost 2% of the human genome. Understanding the role of polyubiquitin-mediated protein degradation has challenging researchers in many fields of investigation as a new source of targets for therapeutic intervention, e.g. E3 ligases that transfer ubiquitin moieties to the substrate. The goal of present work was to uncover mechanisms underlying memory processes regarding the role of the ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS). For that purpose, preceded of a short review on UPS and memory processes a top-down systems biology approach was applied to establish central proteins involved in memory formation and consolidation highlighting their cross-talking with the UPS. According to that approach, the pattern of expression of several elements of the UPS were found overexpressed in regions of the brain involved in processing cortical inputs. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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