4.6 Article

MARCKS regulation of mucin secretion by airway epithelium in vitro -: Interaction with chaperones

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1165/rcmb.2007-0139OC

关键词

MARCKS; cysteine string protein; heat shock protein 70; airway; mucin

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R37 HL36982] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have reported previously that myristoylated alanine-rich C kinase substrate (MARCKS) is a key regulatory molecule controlling mucin secretion by airway epithelial cells in vitro and in vivo. The results of those studies supported a mechanism whereby MARCKS, upon phosphorylation by protein kinase C (PKC), translocates from plasma membrane to cytoplasm, where its binding to membranes of intracellular mucin granules is a key component of the secretory pathway. It remains unknown how MARCKS is targeted to and/or preferentially attaches to mucin granule membranes. We hypothesized that the chaperone cysteine string protein (CSP) may play an important role in this process. CSP was shown to associate with membranes of intracellular mucin granules in well-differentiated normal human bronchial epithelial (NHBE) cells in vitro, as determined by ultrastructural immunohistochemistry and Western blotting of isolated granule membranes. CSP in these cells complexed with MARCKS, as shown by co-immunoprecipitation. Given reported associations between CSP and a second chaperone, heat shock protein 70 (HSP70), a role for HSP70 in the MARCKS-dependent secretory mechanism also was investigated. HSP70 appeared to form a trimeric complex with MARCKS and CSP associated with mucin granule membranes within airway epithelial cells. Transfection of the HBE1 human bronchial epithelial cell line with siRNAs targeting sequences of MARCKS, CSP, or HSP70 resulted, in each case, in significant knockdown of expression of these proteins and subsequent attenuation of mucin secretion. The results provide the first evidence that CSP and HSP70, and their interactions with MARCKS, are involved in mucin secretion.

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