4.6 Article

C-terminal region of STAT-1α is not necessary for its ubiquitination and degradation caused by mumps virus V protein

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 76, 期 24, 页码 12683-12690

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.76.24.12683-12690.2002

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Constitutive levels of production of STAT-1 were reduced by 10 h postinfection (p.i.) and significantly lost by 24 h p.i. in FL cells acutely infected with mumps virus (MuV). This result was consistent with that observed in previous studies and experiments with cells persistently infected with MuV (FLMT cells). There was a marked decrease in the amount of STAT-1 in cells expressing MuV accessory protein V (MuV-V). Furthermore, single amino acid substitutions in the Cys-rich region of V protein (Vc189a, Vc207a, and Vc214a) showed that each cysteine residue plays an important role in the decrease in STAT-1 production, but substitution of a histidine residue at amino acid position 203 had no effect. These events and the resultant suppression of the alpha interferon (IFN-alpha) response were confirmed by a luciferase reporter gene assay with five tandem repeats of the IFN-alpha-stimulated response element as an enhancer element of the firely luciferase gene. STAT-1 production was restored and detectable. in FLMT cells treated with a proteosome inhibitor, such as MG132 or lactacystin. In the presence of MG132, ubiquitination of STAT1 and the interaction of MuV-V with STAT-1 were demonstrated in FLMT cells by immunoprecipitation with anti-STAT-1 antibody. The same results for the interaction and ubiquitination were obtained in experiments with an expression vector for a C-terminal deletion mutant of STAT-1. The truncated STAT-1 molecules were degraded in the presence of MuV-V. Therefore, the C-terminal region (transcriptional activation and Src homology 2 domains) of STAT-1 is not necessary for its degradation caused by MuV-V. Our data suggest that MuV-V promotes ubiquitination and degradation of STAT-1.

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