4.7 Article

Human, Drosophila, and C-elegans TDP43:: Nucleic acid binding properties and splicing regulatory function

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 348, 期 3, 页码 575-588

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2005.02.038

关键词

TDP43; RNA-protein interaction; splicing regulation; hnRNP; RNA recognition motif

资金

  1. Telethon [GGP02453] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

TAR DNA binding protein (TDP43), a highly conserved heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein, was found to down-regulate splicing of the exon 9 cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) through specific binding to a UG-rich polymorphic region upstream of the 3' splice site. Despite the emergence of new information regarding the protein's nuclear localization and splicing regulatory activity, TDP43's role in cells remains elusive. To investigate the function of human TDP43 and its homologues, we cloned and characterized the proteins from Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans. The proteins from human, fly, and worm show striking similarities in their nucleic acid binding specificity. We found that residues at two different positions, which show a strong conservation among TDP43 family members, are linked to the tight recognition of the target sequence. Our three-dimensional model of TDP43 in complex with a (UG)(m) sequence predicts that these residues make amino acid side-chain to base contacts. Moreover, our results suggest that Drosophila TDP43 is comparable to human TDP43 in regulating exon splicing. On the other hand, C. elegans TDP43 has no effect on exon recognition. TDP43 from C. elegans lacks the glycine-rich domain found at the carboxy terminus of the other two homologues. Mutants of human and fly TDP43 devoid of the C-terminal domain are likewise unable to affect splicing. Our studies suggest that the glycine-rich domain is essential for splicing regulation by human and fly TDP43. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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