4.5 Article

The role of the LRPPRC (leucine-rich pentatricopeptide repeat cassette) gene in cytochrome oxidase assembly:: mutation causes lowered levels of COX (cytochrome c oxidase) I and COX III mRNA

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL JOURNAL
卷 382, 期 -, 页码 331-336

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/BJ20040469

关键词

cytochrome c oxidase I (COX I) and COX III mRNA; cytochrome oxidase; Leigh syndrome; leucine-rich pentatricopeptide repeat cassette (LRPPRC) protein; mitochondria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Leigh syndrome French Canadian (LSFC) is a variant of cytochrome oxidase deficiency found in Quebec and caused by mutations in the LRPPRC (leucine-rich pentatricopeptide repeat cassette) gene. Northern blots showed that the LRPPRC mRNA levels seen in skeletal muscle > heart > placenta > kidney > liver > lung = brain were proportionally almost opposite in strength to the severity of the enzymic cytochrome oxidase defect. The levels of COX (cytochrome c oxidase) I and COX III mRNA visible on Northern blots were reduced in LSFC patients due to the common (A354V, Ala(354) --> Val) founder mutation. The amount of LRPPRC protein found in both fibroblast and liver mitochondria from LSFC patients was consistently reduced to < 30 % of control levels. Import of [S-35]methionine LRPPRC into rat liver mitochondria was slower for the mutant (A354V) protein. A titre of LRPPRC protein was also found in nuclear fractions that could not be easily accounted for by mitochondrial contamination. [S-35]Methionine labelling of mitochondrial translation products showed that the translation of COX I, and perhaps COX III, was specifically reduced in the presence of the mutation. These results suggest that the gene product of LRPPRC, like PET 309p, has a role in the translation or stability of the mRNA for mitochondrially encoded COX subunits. A more diffuse distribution of LRPPRC in LSFC cells compared with controls was evident when viewed by immunofluorescence microscopy, with less LRPPRC present in peripheral mitochondria.

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