4.4 Article

Tomographic evidence for continuous turnover of Golgi cisternae in Pichia pastoris

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF THE CELL
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 2277-2291

出版社

AMER SOC CELL BIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1091/mbc.E02-10-0697

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM061156, GM-61306, GM-61156, P01 GM061306] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The budding yeast Pichia pastoris contains ordered Golgi stacks next to discrete transitional endoplasmic reticulum (tER) sites, making this organism ideal for structure-function studies of the secretory pathway. Here, we have used P. pastoris to test various models for Golgi trafficking. The experimental approach was to analyze P. pastoris tER-Golgi units by using cryofixed and freeze-substituted cells for electron microscope tomography, immunoelectron microscopy, and serial thin section analysis of entire cells. We find that tER sites and the adjacent Golgi stacks are enclosed in a ribosome-excluding matrix. Each stack contains three to four cisternae, which can be classified as cis, medial, trans, or trans-Golgi network (TGN). No membrane continuities between compartments were detected. This work provides three major new insights. First, two types of transport vesicles accumulate at the tER-Golgi interface. Morphological analysis indicates that the center of the tER-Golgi interface contains COPII vesicles, whereas the periphery contains COPI vesicles. Second, fenestrae are absent from cis cisternae, but are present in medial through TGN cisternae. The number and distribution of the fenestrae suggest that they form at the edges of the medial cisternae and then migrate inward. Third, intact TGN cisternae apparently peel off from the Golgi stacks and persist for some time in the cytosol, and these free-floating TGN cisternae produce clathrin-coated vesicles. These observations are most readily explained by assuming that Golgi cisternae form at the cis face of the stack, progressively mature, and ultimately dissociate from the trans face of the stack.

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