4.1 Article

Rapamycin insensitivity in Schistosoma mansoni is not due to FKBP12 functionality

期刊

MOLECULAR AND BIOCHEMICAL PARASITOLOGY
卷 125, 期 1-2, 页码 1-9

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0166-6851(02)00207-4

关键词

Schistosoma mansoni; immunosuppressant rapamycin; immunophilin FK506 binding protein

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rapamycin (RAPA) is a well-known immunosuppressant, the action of which is mediated by the immunophilin FKBP12. Upon RAPA binding, FKBP12 forms ternary complexes with phosphatidyl inositol related kinases known as the target of RAPA (TOR), which can lead to a mitotic block at the G1-S phase transition. Such an antiproliferative effect makes RAPA an attractive anticancer, antifungal or antiparasitic compound. In this study, we found the helminth parasite Schistosoma mansoni to be insensitive to the drug. In order to elucidate the mechanism underlying RAPA resistance, the S. mansoni drug receptor FKBP12 (SmFKBP12) was cloned for functional analysis. Western blot experiments showed that the protein is constitutively expressed in all life cycle stages and in both male and female parasites. The Escherichia coli-synthesised recombinant protein possessed enzymatic activity, which was inhibitable by RAPA. Moreover, SmFKBP12 was able to complement mutant Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells lacking FKBP12 in their RAPA sensitivity phenotype, leading us to conclude that SmFKBP12 is expressed in yeast in a functional form and capable of interacting with the drug and yeast TOR kinase. Even though the wild type SmFKBP12 appeared to restore a large part of RAPA sensitivity, a mutation of Asps(89)-Lys(90) to Pro(89)-Gly(90) in the schistosome protein was found to be more effective and restored drug sensitivity to the same level as the endogenous yeast protein. Despite ternary complex formation, our results suggest that additional unknown factors other than a functional drug receptor are implicated in drug resistance mechanisms. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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