4.4 Article

Amino acid substitutions of coiled-coil protein Tpr abrogate anchorage to the nuclear pore complex but not parallel, in-register homodimerization

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF THE CELL
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 2433-2452

出版社

AMER SOC CELL BIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1091/mbc.12.8.2433

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tpr is a protein component of nuclear pore complex (NPC)-attached intranuclear filaments. Secondary structure predictions suggest a bipartite structure, with a large N-terminal domain dominated by heptad repeats (HRs) typical for coiled-coil-forming proteins. Proposed functions for Tpr have included roles as a homo- or heteropolymeric architectural element of the nuclear interior. To gain insight into Tpr's ultrastructural properties, we have studied recombinant Tpr segments by circular dichroism spectroscopy, chemical cross-linking, and rotary shadowing electron microscopy. We show that polypeptides of the N-terminal domain homodimerize in vitro and represent a-helical molecules of extended rod-like shape. With the use of a yeast two-hybrid approach, arrangement of the coiled-coil is found to be in parallel and in register. To clarify whether Tpr can self-assemble further into homopolymeric filaments, the full-length protein and deletion mutants were overexpressed in human cells and then analyzed by confocal immunofluorescence microscopy, cell fractionation, and immuno-electron microscopy. Surplus Tpr, which does not bind to the NPC, remains in a soluble state of similar to7.5 S and occasionally forms aggregates of entangled molecules but neither self-assembles into extended linear filaments nor stably binds to other intranuclear structures. Binding to the NPC is shown to depend on the integrity of individual HRs; amino acid substitutions within these HRs abrogate NPC binding and render the protein soluble but do not abolish Tpr's general ability to homodimerize. Possible contributions of Tpr to the structural organization of the nuclear periphery in somatic cells are discussed.

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

4.4
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