4.6 Article

Dual subcellular localization in the endoplasmic reticulum and peroxisomes and a vital role in protecting against oxidative stress of fatty aldehyde dehydrogenase are achieved by alternative splicing

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 282, 期 28, 页码 20763-20773

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M611853200

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fatty aldehyde dehydrogenase ( FALDH, ALDH3A2) is thought to be involved in the degradation of phytanic acid, a saturated branched chain fatty acid derived from chlorophyll. However, the identity, subcellular distribution, and physiological roles of FALDH are unclear because several variants produced by alternative splicing are present in varying amounts at different subcellular locations. Subcellular fractionation experiments do not provide a clear-cut conclusion because of the incomplete separation of organelles. We established human cell lines heterologously expressing mouse FALDH from each cDNA without tagging under the control of an inducible promoter and detected the variant FALDH proteins using a mouse FALDH specific antibody. One variant, FALDH-V, was exclusively detected in peroxisomal membranes. Human FALDH-V with an amino-terminal Myc sequence also localized to peroxisomes. The most dominant form, FALDH-N, and other variants examined, however, were distributed in the endoplasmic reticulum. A gas chromatography-mass spectrometry-based analysis of metabolites in FALDH-expressing cells incubated with phytol or phytanic acid showed that FALDH-V, not FALDH-N, is the key aldehyde dehydrogenase in the degradation pathway and that it protects peroxisomes from oxidative stress. In contrast, both FALDHs had a protective effect against oxidative stress induced by a model aldehyde for lipid peroxidation, dodecanal. These results suggest that FALDH variants are produced by alternative splicing and share an important role in protecting against oxidative stress in an organelle-specific manner.

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