4.8 Article

A Class of Reactive Acyl-CoA Species Reveals the Non-enzymatic Origins of Protein Acylation

期刊

CELL METABOLISM
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 823-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmet.2017.03.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Heart Association [12IRG9010008]
  2. Edward Mallinckrodt, Jr. Foundation
  3. Ellison Medical Foundation
  4. National Institutes of Health
  5. NIAAA [R01AA022146]
  6. NIA [R01AG045351]
  7. Duke Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (OAIC) Program in Aging Research - National Institute of Aging [P30AG028716-01]
  8. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health [2T32DK007012]
  9. NIH/NCATS Colorado CTSI [UL1TR001082]
  10. Canadian Institutes for Health Research [178978]
  11. NIH [B6.129S4-Gcdhtm1Dmk/Mmnc, 034368-UNC, 8U42OD010924-13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mechanisms underlying the formation of acyl protein modifications remain poorly understood. By investigating the reactivity of endogenous acyl-CoA metabolites, we found a class of acyl-CoAs that undergo intramolecular catalysis to form reactive intermediates that non-enzymatically modify proteins. Based on this mechanism, we predicted, validated, and characterized a protein modification: 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl(HMG)-lysine. In a model of altered HMG-CoA metabolism, we found evidence of two additional protein modifications: 3-methylglutaconyl(MGc)-lysine and 3-methylglutaryl(MG)lysine. Using quantitative proteomics, we compared the acylomes'' of two reactive acyl-CoA species, namely HMG-CoA and glutaryl-CoA, which are generated in different pathways. We found proteins that are uniquely modified by each reactive metabolite, as well as common proteins and pathways. We identified the tricarboxylic acid cycle as a pathway commonly regulated by acylation and validated malate dehydrogenase as a key target. These data uncover a fundamental relationship between reactive acyl-CoA species and proteins and define a new regulatory paradigm in metabolism.

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