4.5 Review

The phosphoprotein phosphatase family of Ser/Thr phosphatases as principal targets of naturally occurring toxins

期刊

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN TOXICOLOGY
卷 41, 期 2, 页码 83-110

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2010.515564

关键词

-

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) [SFRH/BPD/26639/2006, PTDC/BIA-BDE/69144/2006, PTDC/AAC-AMB/104983/2008]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/26639/2006, PTDC/BIA-BDE/69144/2006, PTDC/AAC-AMB/104983/2008] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phosphoprotein phosphatases (PPPs) constitute one of three otherwise unrelated families of enzymes that specialize in removing the phosphate group from phosphorylated serine and threonine residues. The involvement of PPP enzymes in the regulation of processes such as gene expression, DNA replication, morphogenesis, synaptic transmission, glycogen metabolism, and apoptosis has underscored their potential as targets for the treatment of a variety of conditions such as cancer, diabetes, or Alzheimer''s disease. Interestingly, PPP enzymes also constitute the physiological target of multiple naturally occurring toxins, including microcystins from cyanobacteria and cantharidin from beetles. This review is devoted to the PPP family of enzymes--with a focus on the human PPPs--and the naturally occurring toxins that are known to potently impair their activity. The interaction of the toxins with the enzymes is evaluated in atomic detail to obtain insight on two complementary aspects: (1) which specific structural differences within the similarly folded catalytic core of the PPP enzymes explain their diverse sensitivities to toxin inhibition and (2) which structural features presented by the various toxins account for the differential inhibitory potency towards each PPP. These analyses take advantage of numerous site-directed mutagenesis studies, structure-activity evaluations, and recent crystallographic structures of PPPs bound to different toxins.

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

4.5
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