4.7 Article

How strict is the correlation between STIM1 and Orai1 expression, puncta formation, and ICRAC activation?

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-CELL PHYSIOLOGY
卷 295, 期 5, 页码 C1133-C1140

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpcell.00306.2008

关键词

store-operated Ca2+ entry

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [HL54150, HL71793, HL007224]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gwozdz T, Dutko-Gwozdz J, Zarayskiy V, Peter K, Bolotina VM. How strict is the correlation between STIM1 and Orai1 expression, puncta formation, and ICRAC activation? Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 295: C1133-C1140, 2008. First published September 3, 2008; doi:10.1152/ajpcell.00306.2008.-Stromal interaction molecule 1 ( STIM1) and Orai1 have been identified as crucial elements of the store-operated Ca2+ entry (SOCE) pathway, but the mechanism of their functional interaction remains controversial. It is now well established that, upon depletion of the stores, both molecules can accumulate and colocalize in specific areas ( puncta) where the endoplasmic reticulum comes in close proximity to the plasma membrane. Some models propose a direct interaction between STIM1 and Orai1 as the most straightforward mechanism for signal transduction from the stores to the plasma membrane. To test some of the predictions of a conformational coupling model, we assessed how tight the relationships are between STIM1 and Orai1 expression, puncta formation, and SOCE activation. Here we present evidence that STIM1 accumulates in puncta equally well in the presence or absence of Orai1 expression, that STIM1 accumulation is not sufficient for Orai1 accumulation in the same areas, and that normal Ca2+ release-activated Ca2+ current (ICRAC) can be activated in STIM1-deficient cells. These data challenge the idea of direct conformational coupling between STIM1 and Orai1 as a viable mechanism of puncta formation and SOCE activation and uncover greater complexity in their relationship, which may require additional intermediate elements.

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

4.7
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