4.6 Article

Golgi Anti-apoptotic Proteins Are Highly Conserved Ion Channels That Affect Apoptosis and Cell Migration

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 290, 期 18, 页码 11785-11801

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M115.637306

关键词

-

资金

  1. United Kingdom Medical Research Council
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  3. Wellcome Trust
  4. BBSRC [BB/L000075/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. MRC [G0900224] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/L000075/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Medical Research Council [G0900224] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Wellcome Trust [101844/Z/13/Z] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Wellcome Trust [101844/Z/13/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Golgi anti-apoptotic proteins (GAAPs) are multitransmembrane proteins that are expressed in the Golgi apparatus and are able to homo-oligomerize. They are highly conserved throughout eukaryotes and are present in some prokaryotes and orthopoxviruses. Within eukaryotes, GAAPs regulate the Ca2+ content of intracellular stores, inhibit apoptosis, and promote cell adhesion and migration. Data presented here demonstrate that purified viral GAAPs (vGAAPs) and human Bax inhibitor 1 form ion channels and that vGAAP from camelpox virus is selective for cations. Mutagenesis of vGAAP, including some residues conserved in the recently solved structure of a related bacterial protein, BsYetJ, altered the conductance (E207Q and D219N) and ion selectivity (E207Q) of the channel. Mutation of residue Glu-207 or -178 reduced the effects of GAAP on cell migration and adhesion without affecting protection from apoptosis. In contrast, mutation of Asp-219 abrogated the anti-apoptotic activity of GAAP but not its effects on cell migration and adhesion. These results demonstrate that GAAPs are ion channels and define residues that contribute to the ion-conducting pore and affect apoptosis, cell adhesion, and migration independently.

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

4.6
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