4.8 Article

Structural inhibition of dynamin-mediated membrane fission by endophilin

期刊

ELIFE
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELIFE SCIENCES PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.26856

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. H European Research Council [311536]
  2. Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Forderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung [31003A_130520, 31003A_149975]
  3. Human Frontier Science Program [CDA-0061-08]
  4. National Institutes of Health [1DP2GM110772, N5036251]
  5. Howard Hughes Medical Institute [55108523]
  6. Searle scholars award [13SSP218]
  7. TRANSPOL [264399]
  8. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [DP2GM110772, R01GM127673] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  9. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R37NS036251, R01NS036251] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  10. OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH [S10OD020054, S10OD021741, S10OD021596] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dynamin, which mediates membrane fission during endocytosis, binds endophilin and other members of the Bin-Amphiphysin-Rvs (BAR) protein family. How endophilin influences endocytic membrane fission is still unclear. Here, we show that dynamin-mediated membrane fission is potently inhibited in vitro when an excess of endophilin co-assembles with dynamin around membrane tubules. We further show by electron microscopy that endophilin intercalates between turns of the dynamin helix and impairs fission by preventing trans interactions between dynamin rungs that are thought to play critical roles in membrane constriction. In living cells, overexpression of endophilin delayed both fission and transferrin uptake. Together, our observations suggest that while endophilin helps shape endocytic tubules and recruit dynamin to endocytic sites, it can also block membrane fission when present in excess by inhibiting inter-dynamin interactions. The sequence of recruitment and the relative stoichiometry of the two proteins may be critical to regulated endocytic fission.

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