4.7 Article

Rho GTPases show differential sensitivity to nucleotide triphosphate depletion in a model of ischemic cell injury

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-CELL PHYSIOLOGY
卷 285, 期 1, 页码 C129-C138

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpcell.00007.2003

关键词

Rac; Cdc42; actin; ezrin; adenosine 5 '-triphosphate; guanosine 5 '-triphosphate

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK-61594, DK-53194] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rho GTPases are critical for actin cytoskeletal regulation, and alterations in their activity may contribute to altered cytoskeletal organization that characterizes many pathological conditions, including ischemia. G protein activity is a function of the ratio of GTP-bound (active) to GDP-bound (inactive) protein, but the effect of altered energy metabolism on Rho protein activity has not been determined. We used antimycin A and substrate depletion to induce depletion of intracellular ATP and GTP in the kidney proximal tubule cell line LLC-PK10 and measured the activity of RhoA, Rac1, and Cdc42 with GTPase effector binding domains fused to glutathione S-transferase. RhoA activity decreased in parallel with the concentration of ATP and GTP during depletion, so that by 60 min there was no detectable RhoA-GTP, and recovered rapidly when cells were returned to normal culture conditions. Dissociation of the membrane-actin linker ezrin, a target of RhoA signaling, from the cytoskeletal fraction paralleled the decrease in RhoA activity and was augmented by treatment with the Rho kinase inhibitor Y27632. The activity of Cdc42 did not decrease significantly during depletion or recovery. Rac1 activity decreased moderately to a minimum at 30 min of depletion but then increased from 30 to 90 min of depletion, even as ATP and GTP levels continued to fall. Our data are consistent with a principal role for RhoA in cytoskeletal reorganization during ischemia and demonstrate that the activity of Rho GTPases can be maintained even at low GTP concentrations.

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