4.0 Article

MID1 and MID2 homo- and hetero-dimerise to tether the rapamycin-sensitive PP2A regulatory subunit, Alpha 4, to microtubules: implications for the clinical variability of X-linked Opitz GBBB syndrome and other developmental disorders

期刊

BMC CELL BIOLOGY
卷 3, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2121-3-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patients with Opitz GBBB syndrome present with a variable array of developmental defects including craniofacial, cardiac, and genital anomalies. Mutations in the X-linked MID1 gene, which encodes a microtubule-binding protein, have been found in similar to 50% of Opitz GBBB syndrome patients consistent with the genetically heterogeneous nature of the disorder. A protein highly related to MID1, called MID2, has also been described that similarly associates with microtubules. Results: To identify protein partners of MID1 and MID2 we undertook two separate yeast two-hybrid screens. Using this system we identified Alpha 4, a regulatory subunit of PP2-type phosphatases and a key component of the rapamycin-sensitive signaling pathway, as a strong interactor of both proteins. Analysis of domain-specific deletions has shown that the B-boxes of both MID1 and MID2 mediate the interaction with Alpha 4, the first demonstration in an RBCC protein of a specific role for the B-box region. In addition, we show that the MID1/2 coiled-coil motifs mediate both homo-and hetero-dimerisation, and that dimerisation is a prerequisite for association of the MID-Alpha 4 complex with microtubules. Conclusions: Our findings not only implicate Alpha 4 in the pathogenesis of Opitz GBBB syndrome but also support our earlier hypothesis that MID2 is a modifier of the X-linked phenotype. Of further note is the observation that Alpha 4 maps to Xq13 within the region showing linkage to FG (Opitz-Kaveggia) syndrome. Overlap in the clinical features of FG and Opitz GBBB syndromes warrants investigation of Alpha 4 as a candidate for causing FG syndrome.

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

4.0
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