4.8 Article

Dominant loss of responsiveness to sweet and bitter compounds caused by a single mutation in α-gustducin

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.151235798

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01DC03155, F32 DC000142, R03DC04766, F32DC00142-02, R01 DC003155, R01DC03055, R01 DC003055] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biochemical and genetic studies have implicated alpha -gustducin as a key component in the transduction of both bitter or sweet taste. Yet, alpha -gustducin-null mice are not completely unresponsive to bitter or sweet compounds. To gain insights into how gustducin mediates responses to bitter and sweet compounds, and to elicit the nature of the gustducin-independent pathways, we generated a dominant-negative form of alpha -gustducin and expressed it as a transgene from the alpha -gustducin promoter in both wild-type and alpha -gustducin-null mice. A single mutation, G352P, introduced into the C-terminal region of alpha -gustducin critical for receptor interaction rendered the mutant protein unresponsive to activation by taste receptor, but left its other functions intact. In control experiments, expression of wild-type alpha -gustducin as a transgene in alpha -gustducin-null mice fully restored responsiveness to bitter and sweet compounds, formally proving that the targeted deletion of the alpha -gustducin gene caused the taste deficits of the null mice. In contrast, transgenic expression of the G352P mutant did not restore responsiveness of the null mice to either bitter or sweet compounds. Furthermore, in the wild-type background, the mutant transgene inhibited endogenous alpha -gustducin's interactions with taste receptors, i.e., it acted as a dominant-negative. That the mutant transgene further diminished the residual bitter and sweet taste responsiveness of the alpha -gustducin-null mice suggests that other guanine nucleotide-binding regulatory proteins expressed in the alpha -gustducin lineage of taste cells mediate these responses.

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

4.8
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