4.5 Article

Definition of the minimal fragments of Sti1 required for dimerization, interaction with Hsp70 and Hsp90 and in vivo functions

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL JOURNAL
卷 404, 期 -, 页码 159-167

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/BJ20070084

关键词

heat-shock protein; Hop; molecular chaperone; tetratricopeptide repeat domain

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P20 RR016454, P20 RR015587, P20 RR15587] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The molecular chaperone Hsp (heat-shock protein) 90 is critical for the activity of diverse cellular client proteins. In a current model, client proteins are transferred from Hsp70 to Hsp90 in a process mediated by the co-chaperone Sti1/Hop, which may simultaneously interact with Hsp70 and Hsp90 via separate TPR (tetratricopeptide repeat) domains, but the mechanism and in vivo importance of this function is unclear. In the present study, we used truncated forms of Sti1 to determine the minimal regions required for the Hsp70 and Hsp90 interaction, as well as Sti I dimerization. We found that both TPR1 and TPR2B contribute to the Hsp70 interaction in vivo and that mutations in both TPR I and TPR2B were required to disrupt the in vitro interaction of Sti1 with the C-terminus of the Hsp70 Ssa1. The TPR2A domain was required for the Hsp90 interaction in vivo, but the isolated TPR2A domain was not sufficient for the Hsp90 interaction unless combined with the TPR2B domain. However, isolated TPR2A was both necessary and sufficient for purified Sti1 to migrate as a dimer in solution. The DP2 domain, which is essential for in vivo function, was dispensable for the Hsp70 and Hsp90 interaction, as well as Sti1 dimerization. As evidence for the role of Sti1 in mediating the interaction between Hsp70 and Hsp90 in vivo, we identified Sti1 mutants that result in reduced recovery of Hsp70 in Hsp90 complexes. We also identified two Hsp90 mutants that exhibit a reduced Hsp70 interaction, which may help clarify the mechanism of client transfer between the two molecular chaperones.

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

4.5
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