4.5 Article

Cell-permeable ceramides preferentially inhibit coated vesicle formation and exocytosis in Chinese hamster ovary compared with Madin-Darby canine kidney cells by preventing the membrane association of ADP-ribosylation factor

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL JOURNAL
卷 361, 期 -, 页码 653-661

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS
DOI: 10.1042/0264-6021:3610653

关键词

Golgi; phosphatidate; phospholipase D; protein kinase C; vesicle transport

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Differential effects of acetyl(C-8-) ceramide (N-acetylsphingosine) were studied on coated vesicle formation from Golgi-enriched membranes of Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) and Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells. C-2-ceramide blocked the translocation of ADP-ribosylation factor-1 (ARF-1) and protein kinase C-alpha (PKC-alpha) to the membranes from CHO cells, but not those of MDCK cells. Consequently, C-2-ceramide blocked the stimulation of phospholipase D1 (PLD1) by the cytosol and guanosine 5'-[gamma-thio]triphosphate (GTP[S]) in membranes from CHO cells. Basal specific activity of PLD1 and the concentration of ARF-1 were 3-4 times higher in Golgi-enriched membranes from MDCK cells compared with CHO cells. Moreover, PLD1 activity in MDCK cells was stimulated less by cytosol and GTP[S]. PLD2 was not detectable in the Golgi-enriched membranes. Incubation of intact CHO cells or their Golgi-enriched membranes with C-2-ceramide also inhibited COP 1 vesicle formation by membranes from CHO, but not MDCK, cells. Specificity was demonstrated, since dihydro-C-2-ceramide had no significant effect on ARF-1 translocation, PLD1 activation or vesicle formation in membranes from both cell types. C-2-ceramide also decreased the secretion of virus-like particles to a greater extent in CHO compared with MDCK cells, whereas dihydro-C-2-ceramide had no significant effect. The results demonstrate a biological effect of C-2-ceramide in CHO cells by decreasing ARF-1 and PKC-alpha binding to Golgi-enriched membranes, thereby preventing COP1 vesicle formation.

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

4.5
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