4.4 Article

Flagellar radial spokes contain a Ca2+-stimulated nucleoside diphosphate kinase

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF THE CELL
卷 15, 期 8, 页码 3891-3902

出版社

AMER SOC CELL BIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1091/mbc.E04-04-0352

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM051293, GM-51293] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The radial spokes are required for Ca2+-initiated intraflagellar signaling, resulting in modulation of inner and outer arm dynein activity. However, the mechanochemical properties of this signaling pathway remain unknown. Here, we describe a novel nucleoside diphosphate kinase (NDK) from the Chlamydomonas flagellum. This protein (termed p61 or RSP23) consists of an N-terminal catalytic NDK domain followed by a repetitive region that includes three IQ motifs and a highly acidic C-terminal segment. We find that p61 is missing in axonemes derived from the mutants pf14 (lacks radial spokes) and pf24 (lacks the spoke head and several stalk components) but not in those from pf17 (lacking only the spoke head). The p61 protein can be extracted from oda1 (lacks outer dynein arms) and pf17 axonemes with 0.5 M KI, and copurifies with radial spokes in sucrose density gradients. Furthermore, p61 contains two classes of calmodulin binding site: IQ1 interacts with calmodulin-Sepharose beads in a Ca2+-independent manner, whereas IQ2 and IQ3 show Ca2+-sensitive associations. Wild-type axonemes exhibit two distinct NDKase activities, at least one of which is stimulated by Ca2+. This Ca2+-responsive enzyme, which accounts for similar to45% of total axonemal NDKase, is missing from pf14 axonemes. We found that purified radial spokes also exhibit NDKase activity. Thus, we conclude that p61 is an integral component of the radial spoke stalk that binds calmodulin and exhibits Ca2+-controlled NDKase activity. These observations suggest that nucleotides other than ATP may play an important role in the signal transduction pathway that underlies the regulatory mechanism defined by the radial spokes.

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

4.4
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