4.6 Article

Biophysical characterization of ERp29 - Evidence for a key structural role of cysteine 125

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 280, 期 14, 页码 13529-13537

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M410889200

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ERp29 is a major resident of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) that seemingly plays an important role in most animal cells. Although a protein-folding association is widely supported, ERp29's specific molecular function remains unknown. A chaperone activity was postulated from evidence that ERp29 forms multimers like the classical ER chaperones, but conflicting results have emerged from our recent studies. Here a biophysical approach was used to clarify this issue and also reveal a key structural role for ERp29's characteristic cysteine, Cys-125. Applying hydrodynamic parameters derived from sedimentation and dynamic light-scattering analyses, a model of ERp29's quaternary structure was assembled from existing tertiary substructures. Comparison with Windbeutel, an ERp29-like protein from fruit fly with specialized chaperone activity, revealed similar tri-lobar gross structures but some finer differences consistent with functional divergence. Solubility and hydrophobic probe assays revealed moderate surface hydrophobicity, which was reduced in mutant ERp29 in which serine replaced Cys-125. This mutant was also relatively labile to proteolytic degradation, providing two reasons for the strict conservation of Cys-125. No multimerization was observed with untagged ERp29, which existed as tight homodimers (K-d < 50 nM), whereas His-tagged ERp29 artifactually formed 670-kDa oligomers. These findings distinguish ERp29 biophysically from its peers in the ER including Windbeutel, endorsing our postulate that ERp29 adds a distinct type of folding activity to the ER machinery. By invoking novel functional associations for Cys-125 and the adjoining linker, new clues about how ERp29 might work have also arisen.

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