4.5 Article

Centrin isoforms in mannnals. Relation to calmodulin

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REPORTS
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 243-252

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11033-006-9004-z

关键词

centrin; calmodulin; isoforms; evolution; mammals; introns-exons; EF hands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In mammals, three calmodulin (CaM) genes code for 100% identical proteins. In these species, four centrin (Cetn) genes have been reported to exist. They are examined in this paper. While the gene for Cetn 1 contains no introns and appears to be derived from Cetn 2 by retroposition, a gene product for Cetn 1 is expressed. Cetn 2, 3, and 4 represent bona fide genes. The major difference between the members of the CaM and the Cetn subfamilies is the presence (usually) in Cetn of an approximately 23 amino acids long (but occasionally much longer) protruding amino acid end. In all members of these two subgroups, four EF hand motifs (in this paper taken as loops containing 12 amino acids) are separated by 24, 25 and 24 amino acids (each a helix-loop-helix) positioned between motifs 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and 3 and 4, respectively. This rule applies not only to CaM and Cetn in mammals but also to these two subfamilies in simpler eukaryotes such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Giardia lamblia. The various mRNA products can be identified most readily by their characteristic 3' UTRs. While CaM is an ancient molecule that is expressed in all cells and is ubiquitous within these cells and interacts therein with almost 100 different proteins, many of which display the IQ or related binding motifs, the distribution and function of Cetn (an equally ancient molecule) is restricted mostly to basal bodies (e.g. in rods of the retina), axonemes, flagella, cilia and centrosomes. Are these two subclasses of calcium carriers (each molecule possessing four EF hands which possibly interact with different association constants)-if they are both present within a cell-randomly chosen for their service to the specific proteins with which they interact?

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