4.1 Article

The high molecular mass rhoptry protein, RhopH1, is encoded by members of the clag multigene family in Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium yoelii

期刊

MOLECULAR AND BIOCHEMICAL PARASITOLOGY
卷 118, 期 2, 页码 223-231

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0166-6851(01)00391-7

关键词

malaria; merozoite; rhoptry; invasion; cytoadherence

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U117532067] Funding Source: Medline
  2. MRC [MC_U117532067] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U117532067] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Malarial merozoite rhoptries contain a high molecular mass protein complex called RhopH. RhopH is composed of three polypeptides, RhopH1, RhopH2. and RhopH3, encoded by distinct genes. Using monoclonal antibody-purified protein complex from both Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium yoelii, peptides were obtained by digestion of RhopH1 and their sequence determined either by mass spectrometry or Edman degradation. In both species the genes encoding RhopH1 were identified as members of the cytoadherence linked asexual gene (clag) family. In P. falciparum the family members on chromosome 3 were identified as encoding RhopH1. In P. yoelii two related genes were identified and sequenced. One of the genes, pyrhoph 1a, was positively identified as encoding RhopH1 by the peptide analysis and the other gene, pyrhoph 1a-p, was at least transcribed. Genes in the clag family present in both parasite species have a number of conserved features. The size and location of the P. yoelii protein complex in the rhoptries was confirmed. The first clag gene identified on chromosome 9 was implicated in cytoadherence, the binding of infected erythrocytes to host endothelial cells; this study shows that other members of the family encode merozoite rhoptry proteins, proteins that may be involved in merozoite-erythrocyte interactions. We propose that the family should be renamed as rhoph1/clag. (C) 2001 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