4.6 Review

Unconventional secretion of transmembrane proteins

期刊

SEMINARS IN CELL & DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 59-66

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2018.03.016

关键词

Unconventional secretion; Transmembrane protein; GRASP; DNAJC14; Secretory autophagy; CFTR; Pendrina

资金

  1. National Research Foundation (NRF) - Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning [NRF-2013R1A3A2042197]
  2. Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute - Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [H15C2892]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the past 20 years it has become evident that eukaryotic cells utilize both conventional and unconventional pathways to deliver proteins to their target sites. Most proteins with a signal peptide and/or a transmembrane domain are conventionally transported through the endoplasmic reticulum to the Golgi apparatus and then to the plasma membrane. However, an increasing number of both soluble cargos (Type I, II, and III) and integral membrane proteins (Type IV) have been found to reach the plasma membrane via unconventional protein secretion (UPS) pathways that bypass the Golgi apparatus under certain conditions, such as cellular stress or development. Well-known examples of transmembrane proteins that undergo Type IV UPS pathways are position-specific antigen subunit alpha 1 integrin, cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator, myeloproliferative leukemia virus oncogene, and pendrin. Although we collectively refer to all Golgi-bypassing routes as UPS, individual trafficking pathways are diverse compared to the conventional pathways, and the molecular mechanisms of UPS pathways are not yet completely defined. This review summarizes the intracellular trafficking pathways of UPS cargo proteins, particularly those with transmembrane domains, and discusses the molecular machinery involved in the UPS of transmembrane proteins. (C) 2018 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

4.6
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