HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jaburek, M. Articles by Garlid, K. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jaburek, M. Articles by Garlid, K. D. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

J Biol Chem, Vol. 274, Issue 37, 26003-26007, September 10, 1999

Transport Function and Regulation of Mitochondrial Uncoupling Proteins 2 and 3^*

Martin Jabrek^§, Miroslav Vaecha, Ruth E. Gimeno^¶, Marlene Dembski^¶, Petr Jeek, Maobin Zhang^**, Paul Burn^**, Louis A. Tartaglia^¶, and Keith D. Garlid

From the  Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology, Beaverton, Oregon 97006-8921,  Institute of Physiology, Academy of Science of the Czech Republic, Vídeská 1083, CZ 14220, Prague, Czech Republic, ^¶ Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, and ^** Department of Metabolic Diseases, Hoffman-La Roche Inc., Nutley, New Jersey 07110

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

Uncoupling protein 1 (UCP1) dissipates energy and generates heat by catalyzing back-flux of protons into the mitochondrial matrix, probably by a fatty acid cycling mechanism. If the newly discovered UCP2 and UCP3 function similarly, they will enhance peripheral energy expenditure and are potential molecular targets for the treatment of obesity. We expressed UCP2 and UCP3 in Escherichia coli and reconstituted the detergent-extracted proteins into liposomes. Ion flux studies show that purified UCP2 and UCP3 behave identically to UCP1. They catalyze electrophoretic flux of protons and alkylsulfonates, and proton flux exhibits an obligatory requirement for fatty acids. Proton flux is inhibited by purine nucleotides but with much lower affinity than observed with UCP1. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that UCP2 and UCP3 behave as uncoupling proteins in the cell.

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

Uncoupling protein 1 (UCP1)¹ of brown adipose tissue mitochondria occupies a special place in bioenergetics, because it is the exception that proves the rule of Mitchell's elegant chemiosmotic theory (1), a protein designed to short circuit the redox proton pumps in order to generate heat and dissipate energy. UCP1 was identified from functional studies on brown adipose tissue mitochondria (2) and was one of the first membrane proteins to be sequenced (3).

For many years it was thought that UCP was expressed solely in mammalian brown adipose tissue; however, it now turns out that Nature has engineered at least five uncoupling proteins. In 1995, a plant uncoupling protein was discovered and later sequenced (4, 5), and 2 years later, UCP2 and UCP3 were identified (6-9). UCP4 was recently described as a brain-specific UCP (10). UCP2 maps to regions of human chromosome 11 and mouse chromosome 7 that have been linked to hyperinsulinemia and obesity, and it is hypothesized that UCP2 is the peripheral target for energy dissipation in the regulation of body weight. UCP2 is ubiquitously expressed in mammalian tissues, whereas UCP3 is expressed primarily in glycolytic skeletal muscle in humans and may account for the thermogenic effect of thyroid hormone (11). These aspects of this rapidly emerging area of research have been nicely reviewed by Boss et al. (12).

Virtually nothing is known about the transport functions of UCP2 and UCP3, and their putative physiological functions have been deduced primarily from their striking sequence identities with UCP1 (12). To address this problem, we expressed human UCP2 and UCP3 in Escherichia coli, where they accumulated in inclusion bodies. Following detergent extraction, we reconstituted the proteins into liposomes and measured H⁺ and K⁺ fluxes. Purified UCP2 and UCP3 both catalyzed electrophoretic flux of protons and alkylsulfonates, and proton flux exhibited an obligatory requirement for fatty acids. We also found that FA-dependent proton transport by UCP2 and UCP3 was inhibited by purine nucleotides, albeit with lower apparent affinities for nucleotides than those observed with UCP1. From these results, we conclude that UCP2 and UCP3 are functional uncoupling proteins and that their biophysical properties are consistent with a physiological role in energy dissipation.

	EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

Expression of UCPs in Saccharomyces cerevisiae-- UCPs were expressed in yeast as described previously (13). Briefly, the SacI/SphI fragments from M13mp19 plasmid containing wild-type rat UCP1 cDNA were subcloned into SacI/SphI-cut pCGS110 E. coli/S. cerevisiae shuttle vector. The S. cerevisiae strain JB516 (MATa, ura3, ade1, leu2, his4, gal⁺) was transformed with the shuttle vector construct and plated on uracil-lacking selective plates. The resulting yeast transformants were grown at 30 °C in selective medium, and overexpression of UCP1 was induced by the addition of 0.2% galactose (13). Similar protocols were followed for UCP2 and UCP3.

Expression of UCP2 and UCP3 in E. coli-- Human UCP2 and human UCP3 open reading frames were amplified by PCR and inserted into the NdeI and NotI sites of the pET21a vector (Novagen). From DNA sequencing, the constructs are predicted to encode proteins with an amino acid sequence identical to the wild-type UCP2 or UCP3 proteins (6-9). Plasmids were transformed into the bacterial strain BL21 (Novagen). Transformed cells were grown at 30 °C to A₆₀₀ = 0.6 and then induced with 1 mM isopropyl--D-thiogalactopyranoside at 30 °C for 6 h. Cells from a 700-ml culture were lysed in a French press in 20 ml of lysis buffer (10 mM Tris, pH 7, 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM dithiothreitol); the lysate was centrifuged at 27,000 × g for 15 min; and the pellet was resuspended in 20 ml of lysis buffer and centrifuged at 1000 × g for 3 min. 1-ml aliquots of the supernatant were centrifuged at 14,000 × g for 15 min in a microcentrifuge, and the resulting pelleted inclusion bodies were stored frozen at 70 °C.

Extraction of UCP2 and UCP3 from Inclusion Bodies-- We modified published protocols (14, 15) for solubilization of E. coli inclusion bodies. The pelleted inclusion bodies (about 2 mg of protein) were suspended and washed three times in wash buffer (tetraethylammonium (TEA⁺) salts of 0.15 M phosphate, 25 mM EDTA, 1 mM ATP, and 1 mM dithiothreitol, pH 7.8). The final pellet was solubilized in 0.4 ml of 50 mM TEA-TES, pH 7.2, containing 1.5% sodium lauroylsarcosinate (SLS). The extract was supplemented with 10 mg/ml asolectin and 3% octylpentaoxyethylene (C₈E₅ detergent) and then dialyzed for 15 h against 3 × 400 ml of extraction buffer (TEA⁺ salts of 50 mM TES and 1 mM EDTA, pH 7.2) to remove SLS. In the first two dialysis periods (1 and 13 h), the extraction buffer was supplemented with 1 mM dithiothreitol and 0.03% sodium azide. These were removed from the final dialysis (1 h). Aliquots of the dialyzed extract, containing about 0.2 mg of protein, were stored at 20 °C.

Reconstitution of Uncoupling Proteins into Liposomes-- Reconstitutions were carried out as described previously for UCP1 (16). Egg yolk phosphatidylcholine (UCP1) or soybean phospholipids (UCP2 and UCP3) were supplemented with cardiolipin (2 mg/ml), dried, and stored under nitrogen. Internal medium (TEA⁺ salts of TES (30 mM), SO₄ (80 mM), and EDTA (1 mM), pH 7.2) was added to give a final concentration of 40 mg of phospholipid/ml of proteoliposome stock. The mixture was vortexed and sonicated to clarity in a bath sonicator, and detergent (10% C₈E₅), protein extract, and fluorescent probe were added. The final mixture (1.1 ml) was applied onto 2 ml of Bio-Bead SM-2 (Bio-Rad) column to remove the detergent. After 2 h of incubation, the column was centrifuged, and the resulting proteoliposomes were applied onto a new 2-ml Bio-Bead column, incubated for 30 min, and centrifuged. The formed vesicles (1 ml) were passed through a Sephadex G-25-300 column to remove external probe.

Fluorescence Measurements of Ion Fluxes-- Ion flux in proteoliposomes was measured using ion-specific fluorescent probes and an SLM Aminco 8000C spectrofluorometer. Measurements of H⁺ fluxes were obtained from changes in 6-methoxy-N-(3-sulfopropyl)quinolinium fluorescence due to quenching by the anion of TES buffer (17). Measurements of K⁺ fluxes, reflecting the movement of ionic charge across the membrane, were obtained from changes in potassium-binding benzofuran isophthalate fluorescence (16, 18). Internal and external media contained K⁺ or TEA⁺ salts of TES buffer (30 mM), SO₄ (80 mM), and EDTA (1 mM), pH 7.2. TEA⁺ internal medium and K⁺ external medium were used for the experiments of Figs. 3 and 4 to measure electrophoretic H⁺ efflux, while these cations were reversed for the experiments of Figs. 5 and 6 to measure nucleotide inhibition. Each proteoliposome preparation was individually calibrated for fluorescent probe response, and its internal volume was estimated from the volume of distribution of the fluorescent probe (16).

Chemicals and Reagents-- Potassium-binding benzofuran isophthalate and 6-methoxy-N-(3-sulfopropyl)quinolinium were purchased from Molecular Probes, Inc. (Eugene, OR). Undecanesulfonate was purchased from Research Plus, Inc. Asolectin (45% L-- phosphatidylcholine) was purchased from Avanti Polar Lipids, Inc. Sulfuric acid was purchased from Fisher. Materials for UCP1 expression in yeast were from sources listed previously (17). All other chemicals were from Sigma. Purine nucleotides were adjusted to pH 7.2 with Tris base.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

Isolation and Reconstitution of UCPs Expressed in E. coli-- The development of a functional yeast expression system allowed us to investigate structure-function relationships of UCP1 using site-directed mutagenesis (19, 20). Similarly, we attempted to use yeast expression for human UCP2 and UCP3 in order to study their function. As opposed to UCP1, however, both UCP2 and UCP3 expressed in lower quantities in yeast and were difficult to purify. Expression in E. coli yielded high amounts of UCP2 and UCP3, which accumulated in inclusion bodies. However, when the proteins were extracted using SLS detergent and reconstituted into liposomes, the proteins were found to be inactive (not shown). We obtained functionally active protein by supplementing the extract with asolectin and octylpentaoxyethylene and subjecting the extract to prolonged dialysis against SLS-free buffer. The dialysis may have reduced the SLS concentration, but this was not assayed. The proteoliposomes typically had an internal volume of 1.2 µl/mg of lipid and contained 3-5 µg protein/mg of lipid. To estimate the purity of reconstituted UCP2 and UCP3, the proteoliposomes were delipidated and subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, with the results shown in Fig. 1.

View larger version (55K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1.   Purified, reconstituted UCP2 and UCP3. Coomassie Blue-stained SDS-polyacrylamide gels from proteoliposomes containing UCP2 and UCP3. The proteins were expressed in E. coli, extracted from inclusion bodies, and reconstituted into liposomes. 10 µg of delipidated proteins were loaded onto each lane of the gel parallel to Mr standards.

Undecanesulfonate and Fatty Acids Induce Electrophoretic Fluxes in Liposomes Reconstituted with UCP2 and UCP3-- The representative ion flux traces in Fig. 2 show that UCP2 catalyzes FA-dependent, electrophoretic proton flux. The traces in Fig. 2A follow H⁺ movement across the membrane. It can be seen that FA induce a strong H⁺ flux (Fig. 2A, trace a) that is absent in the absence of FA (trace b) and does not occur in liposomes without protein (trace c). Undecanesulfonate, an analogue of laurate, does not support H⁺ transport (trace d). The traces in Fig. 2B follow K⁺ movement. It can be seen that charge movement across the membrane exactly matches FA-induced H⁺ flux (trace a), confirming that the H⁺ flux is electrophoretic. Undecanesulfonate induced a strong K⁺ flux (trace d), demonstrating that the sulfonate anion is transported by UCP2.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2.   FA-dependent proton and undecanesulfonate transport via UCP2. A, traces follow changes in intraliposomal acid ([H+]), which were determined from quenching of 6-methoxy-N-(3-sulfopropyl)quinolinium fluorescence by the anion of TES buffer (17). Trace a, 40 µM palmitate and 0.1 µM valinomycin were added sequentially. Trace b, valinomycin was added without FA. Trace c, liposomes without UCP2; FA and valinomycin were added sequentially. Trace d, 40 µM undecanesulfonate and valinomycin were added sequentially. (Note that traces a and c are offset for clarity). B, traces follow changes in total intraliposomal K+ ([K+]), which were measured using potassium-binding benzofuran isophthalate fluorescence. Assay conditions and additions for each trace were identical to those described for A. Except for trace c, liposomes contained UCP2. H+ efflux was driven by an inward K+ gradient. These data are representative of more than 20 experiments on 10 different UCP2 reconstitutions.

A rapid intraliposomal acidification ensues upon the addition of FA (Fig. 2A, traces a and c). This is due to flip-flop of the protonated FA and acid-base equilibration (21). It is an electroneutral process, as evidenced by the lack of a corresponding K⁺ jump upon the addition of FA (Fig. 2B).

The representative ion flux traces in Fig. 3 were obtained with UCP3, and they are qualitatively identical in every detail with those of UCP2. These results are highly reproducible and are representative of more than 20 assays from 10 or more preparations of each UCP.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3.   FA-dependent proton and undecanesulfonate transport via UCP3. The traces shown were obtained under assay conditions identical with those described in Fig. 2 for UCP2, except that 40 µM laurate was used instead of palmitate. A, traces follow changes in intraliposomal acid ([H+]). B, traces follow changes in total intraliposomal K+ ([K+]). Except for trace c, liposomes contained UCP3. These data are representative of more than 20 experiments on 10 different UCP3 reconstitutions.

Preliminary results from a kinetic study of UCP2 and UCP3 (not shown) indicate that there may be quantitative differences in FA preference among the UCPs. The K_m values for FA are similar among all three UCPs (10-20 nmol of FA/mg of lipid), and the V_max values for palmitate are also similar (10-30 µmol/mg·min). However, the V_max for laurate is much lower in UCP2 than in UCP1 or UCP3, indicating a preference for long-chain FA by UCP2.

Inhibition of UCPs by Purine Nucleotides-- A second essential property of UCP1 is inhibition of fatty acid-induced proton fluxes by purine nucleotides. To our surprise, we found striking differences in nucleotide sensitivity among the UCPs, as evidenced by the data in Fig. 4 comparing inhibition by 1 mM GDP, ATP, and GTP. To date, we have identified ATP as the most potent inhibitor of UCP2 (Fig. 5A) and UCP3 (Fig. 5B), although the apparent K_i values for ATP inhibition are considerably lower than that for UCP1 (Table I). UCP2 and UCP3 are notably less sensitive to GDP or GTP, which are potent inhibitors of UCP1.

View larger version (30K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4.   Sensitivities to nucleotide inhibition of UCP1, UCP2, and UCP3. The bars represent residual, FA-induced proton flux in the presence of 1 mM nucleotide. 100% inhibition was estimated by extrapolation of inhibitor concentration plots obtained with ATP, as in Fig. 5. 50 µM laurate was used for UCP1 and UCP3, and 50 µM palmitate was used for UCP2. H+ influx was driven by an outward K+ gradient in the presence of 30 nM valinomycin. Assay pH was 7.2.

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5.   Concentration dependence of nucleotide inhibition of UCP2 and UCP3. A, ATP inhibition of UCP2-mediated H+ influx, in the presence of 50 µM palmitate, pH 7.2. The Ki for ATP inhibition is 710 µM. B, ATP inhibition of UCP3-mediated H+ influx, in the presence of 50 µM laurate, pH 7.2. The Ki for ATP inhibition is 670 µM. The curves are representative of three independent preparations of UCP2 and -3.

	DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

Electrophoretic proton flux is the sine qua non of an uncoupling function. The data in Figs. 3 and 4 show that UCP2 and UCP3 meet this primary criterion, thereby establishing them as uncoupling proteins in function as well as in name. Indeed, the transport properties of UCP2 and UCP3 are qualitatively identical with those of UCP1 with respect to transport of protons and alkylsulfonates (21, 22).

The finding that FA are obligatory for proton flux mediated by UCP2 and UCP3, just as they are for UCP1 (22, 23), has important implications for the biophysical transport mechanism of UCPs, an issue that is not entirely resolved. We favor the FA protonophore model, shown in Fig. 6, in which UCPs contain a transport pathway for the anionic head groups of FA and alkylsulfonates. The head group is driven from one membrane leaflet to the other by the electric field generated by electron transport. When the FA carboxylate reaches one side, it picks up a proton and rapidly flip-flops back to release the proton to the other side. The UCPs thus catalyze a protonophoretic cycle, leading to uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation (21).

View larger version (44K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6.   The UCP-catalyzed protonophoretic cycle. The diagram shows an inner membrane segment containing UCP1. The complete uncoupling cycle consists of the following five steps. (i) FA anion partitions in the lipid bilayer with its head group at the level of the acyl glycerol linkages and below the surface of the phospholipid head groups. This location is shielded from the aqueous, which causes the pKa values of FA in membranes to be 3-4 units higher than their values in solution (34). There is no significant flux of FA anion, because the bilayer energy barrier is too high (35). (ii) The FA anion diffuses laterally in the bilayer to reach a subsurface binding site on UCP that is shielded from the bulk aqueous phase (36). (iii) The energy barrier to FA anion transport is lowered by a weak binding site located about halfway through the UCP transport pathway (37). The electric field created by redox-linked proton ejection drives the anionic head group to the energy well. (iv) The FA carboxylate group is transported to the other side of the membrane and then diffuses laterally away from the conductance pathway. The preference of UCP for hydrophobic anions (36) indicates that the hydrophobic FA tail remains in the bilayer during transport. (v) The FA is protonated, and the protonated FA rapidly flip-flops again, delivering protons electroneutrally to the mitochondrial matrix and completing the cycle.

An alternative model by Klingenberg and co-workers (24) proposes that UCP1 transports protons, that the transport pathway contains histidines, and that FA function as nonstoichiometric cofactors to buffer intrachannel protons. In a major advance, Bienengraeber et al. (25) demonstrated that substitution of two histidines (H145Q,H147N) in UCP1 caused selective loss of H⁺ transport and concluded that these histidines constitute part of the proton conducting pathway. The authors go on to predict that UCP2, which contains neither histidine, will not conduct protons and that UCP3, which contains only one histidine, will conduct protons only weakly. In our view, the mutagenesis results are equally consistent with the FA protonophore model and suggest that the histidines in UCP1 form part of the surface binding site in the FA anion transport pathway. UCP2 and UCP3 possess ample basic residues in this region to fulfill such a role (26). Our interpretation therefore predicts that UCP2 and UCP3 will catalyze FA-dependent proton transport, and our results thus provide independent support for the FA protonophore model (Fig. 6).

Transport of the head group of undecanesulfonate also supports the FA protonophore model. Undecanesulfonate is a close analogue of laurate and is a competitive inhibitor of laurate-induced H⁺ transport in UCP1 (22). The sulfonate group is transported across the membrane by all three UCPs; however, alkylsulfonates do not support H⁺ transport. The reason for this failure is that sulfonates are very strong acids and, consequently, cannot deliver protons by electroneutral flip-flop across the bilayer (21). Thus, alkylsulfonates share the anion transport pathway in UCP1 with FA, but they cannot complete the protonophoretic cycle. The fact that the anionic head group of alkylsulfonates is transported across the membrane is a serious problem for the buffering model, because there is no known physicochemical mechanism that would permit alkylsulfonate anion transport and prohibit FA anion transport.

Inhibition by purine nucleotides is also an essential property of UCP1. Since FA have no effect on the K_i for nucleotide inhibition (22), it is generally agreed that transport and inhibition take place on different domains. The nucleotide binding domain in UCP1 is extensive and reasonably well characterized. The sugar-base moiety reacts with three residues located on the matrix segment that connects helices 5 and 6, an interaction that may confer selectivity among nucleotides (27-29). A glutamate, Glu¹⁹⁰, in the fourth transmembrane helix is the pH sensor for nucleotide binding (30). Three arginines, located in the transmembrane helices 2, 4, and 6, are required for nucleotide inhibition and have been shown to bind the nucleoside phosphates (20). Site-directed mutagenesis studies have led to a three-stage binding-conformational change model for nucleotide binding and inhibition in UCP1 (20).

It is noteworthy that the seven residues involved in nucleotide inhibition are largely conserved in UCP2, UCP3, and plant uncoupling protein, suggesting not only that these proteins would be regulated by nucleotides but also that regulation would be similar among the UCPs. Surprisingly, there are striking differences in nucleotide sensitivity among the UCPs, with UCP2 and UCP3 being only weakly sensitive to GDP, for example (Fig. 4, Table I). Similarly, plant uncoupling protein was also only weakly sensitive to purine nucleotides (31).

The physiological significance of variations in nucleotide inhibition is unclear, because it is not known how any of the UCPs are opened in vivo. In the case of UCP1, a common view is that uncoupling is initiated by dissociation of ATP (32). In our view, nucleotide debinding is an unlikely opening mechanism; to regulate important physiological processes, Nature normally relies on specific signaling pathways and not on the law of mass action. Regulation may involve post-translational modification of the proteins; however, no such signaling pathway has yet been demonstrated in the opening of any of the UCPs.

A major value of studies such as these on isolated, reconstituted UCPs is that they permit direct comparison with similar studies obtained using UCP1. In this regard, our most noteworthy finding is that the three mammalian UCPs are qualitatively identical in mediating FA-dependent proton transport. Studies on whole cells and isolated mitochondria containing native UCP2 and UCP3 are urgently needed to advance the field. It is hoped that the biophysical approach described here will prove useful as a guide to studies on the native system.

	FOOTNOTES

^* This research was supported in part by National Institute of General Medical Sciences Grant GM31086 (to K. D. G.) and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease Grant DK56273 (to K. D. G.) from the National Institutes of Health; by Czech-U.S. Science & Technology Program Grant 94043 (to P. J.); and by Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

A preliminary account of these findings was reported in abstract form (33).

^§ This work comprises partial fulfillment of requirements for the Ph.D. degree at the Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology.

To whom correspondence and reprint requests should be addressed: Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology, 20000 N.W. Walker Rd, Beaverton, OR 97006-8921. Tel.: 503-748-1680; Fax: 503-748-1464; E-mail: garlid@bmb.ogi.edu.

	ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used are: UCP, uncoupling protein; FA, fatty acid(s); SLS, sodium lauroylsarcosinate; TEA⁺, tetraethylammonium cation; TES, N-tris(hydroxymethyl)methyl-2-aminoethanesulfonic acid.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

1.	Mitchell, P. (1961) Nature 191, 144-148[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2.	Nicholls, D. G., and Locke, R. M. (1984) Physiol. Rev. 64, 1-64[Free Full Text]
3.	Aquila, H., Link, T. A., and Klingenberg, M. (1985) EMBO J. 4, 2369-2376[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4.	Vercesi, A. E., Martins, I. S., Silva, M. A. P., and Leite, H. M. F. (1995) Nature 375, 24[CrossRef]
5.	Laloi, M., Klein, M., Reismeier, J. W., Muller-Rober, B., Fleury, C., Bouillaud, F., and Ricquier, D. (1997) Nature 389, 135-136[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6.	Gimeno, R. E., Dembski, M., Weng, X., Deng, N., Shyjan, A. W., Gimeno, C. J., Iris, F., Ellis, S. J., Woolf, E. A., and Tartaglia, L. A. (1997) Diabetes 46, 900-906[Abstract]
7.	Fleury, C., Neverova, M., Collins, S., Raimbault, S., Champigny, O., Levi-Meyrueis, C., Bouillaud, F., Seldin, M. F., Surwit, R. S., Ricquier, D., and Warden, C. H. (1997) Nat. Genet. 15, 269-272[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8.	Boss, O., Samec, S., Paoloni-Giacobino, A., Rossier, C., Dullo, A., Seydoux, J., Muzzin, P., and Giacobino, J. P. (1997) FEBS Lett. 408, 39-42[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9.	Vidal-Puig, A., Solanes, G., Grujic, D., Flier, J. S., and Lowell, B. B (1997) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 235, 79-82[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
10.	Mao, W., Yu, X. X., Zhong, A., Li, W., Brush, J., Sherwood, S. W., Adams, S. H., and Pan, G. (1999) FEBS Lett. 443, 326-330[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11.	Gong, D.-W., He, Y., Karas, M., and Reitman, M. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 24129-24132[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12.	Boss, O., Muzzin, P., and Giacobino, J.-P. (1998) Eur. J. Endocrinol. 139, 1-9[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13.	Murdza-Inglis, D. L., Patel, H. V., Freeman, K. B., Jeek, P., Orosz, D. E., and Garlid, K. D. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 11871-11875[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14.	Fiermonte, G., Walker, J. E., and Palmieri, F. (1993) Biochem. J. 294, 293-299
15.	Schroers, A., Burkovski, A., Wohlrab, H., and Kramer, R. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 14269-14276[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16.	Garlid, K. D., Paucek, P., Sun, X., and Woldegiorgis, G. (1995) Methods Enzymol. 266, 331-348
17.	Orosz, D. E., and Garlid, K. D. (1993) Anal. Biochem. 210, 1-15[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18.	Jeek, P., Mahdi, F., and Garlid, K. D. (1990) J. Biol. Chem. 265, 10522-10526[Abstract/Free Full Text]
19.	Murdza-Inglis, D. L., Modrianský, M., Patel, H. V., Woldegiorgis, G., Freeman, K. B., and Garlid, K. D. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 7435-7438[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20.	Modrianský, M., Murdza-Inglis, D. L., Patel, V., Freeman, K. B., and Garlid, K. D. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 24759-24762[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21.	Garlid, K. D., Orosz, D. E., Modrianský, M., Vassanelli, S., and Jeek, P. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 2615-2620[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22.	Jeek, P., Orosz, D. E., Modrianský, M., and Garlid, K. D. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 26184-26190[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23.	Strieleman, P. J., Schalinske, K. L., and Shrago, E. (1985) J. Biol. Chem. 260, 13402-13405[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24.	Klingenberg, M., and Huang, S-G. (1999) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1415, 271-296[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
25.	Bienengraeber, M., Echtay, K. S., and Klingenberg, M. (1998) Biochemistry 37, 3-8[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
26.	Garlid, K. D., Jabrek, M., and Jeek, P. (1998) FEBS Lett. 438, 10-14[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
27.	Winkler, E., and Klingenberg, M. (1992) Eur. J. Biochem. 203, 295-304[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
28.	Mayinger, P., and Klingenberg, M. (1992) Biochemistry 31, 10536-10543[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
29.	Huang, S.-G., and Klingenberg, M. (1995) Biochemistry 34, 349-360[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30.	Winkler, E., Wachler, E., and Klingenberg, M. (1997) Biochemistry 36, 148-155[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
31.	Jeek, P., Costa, A. D. T., and Vercesi, A. E. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 32743-32749[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32.	LaNoue, K. F., Strzelecki, T., Strzelecka, D., and Koch, C. (1986) J. Biol. Chem. 261, 298-305[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33.	Garlid, K. D., Jabrek, M., Vaecha, M., Gimeno, R. E., Tartaglia, L. A. (1999) Biophys. J. 76, A1
34.	Hamilton, J. A., and Cistola, D. P. (1986) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 83, 82-86[Abstract/Free Full Text]
35.	Garlid, K. D., Beavis, A. D., and Ratkje, S. K. (1989) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 976, 6199-6205
36.	Jeek, P., and Garlid, K. D. (1990) J. Biol. Chem. 265, 19303-19311[Abstract/Free Full Text]
37.	Garlid, K. D. (1990) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1018, 151-154[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				I. Samudio, M. Fiegl, T. McQueen, K. Clise-Dwyer, and M. Andreeff The Warburg Effect in Leukemia-Stroma Cocultures Is Mediated by Mitochondrial Uncoupling Associated with Uncoupling Protein 2 Activation Cancer Res., July 1, 2008; 68(13): 5198 - 5205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. J. Anderson, H. Yamazaki, and P. D. Neufer Induction of Endogenous Uncoupling Protein 3 Suppresses Mitochondrial Oxidant Emission during Fatty Acid-supported Respiration J. Biol. Chem., October 26, 2007; 282(43): 31257 - 31266. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. L. King, M. E. Young, J. Kerner, H. Huang, K. M. O'Shea, S. E. H. Alexson, C. L. Hoppel, and W. C. Stanley Diabetes or peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor {alpha} agonist increases mitochondrial thioesterase I activity in heart J. Lipid Res., July 1, 2007; 48(7): 1511 - 1517. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. Beck, M. Jaburek, T. Demina, A. Rupprecht, R. K. Porter, P. Jezek, and E. E. Pohl Polyunsaturated fatty acids activate human uncoupling proteins 1 and 2 in planar lipid bilayers FASEB J, April 1, 2007; 21(4): 1137 - 1144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. Bezaire, E. L. Seifert, and M.-E. Harper Uncoupling protein-3: clues in an ongoing mitochondrial mystery FASEB J, February 1, 2007; 21(2): 312 - 324. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. K. Gerber, B. J. Aronow, and M. A. Matlib Activation of a novel long-chain free fatty acid generation and export system in mitochondria of diabetic rat hearts Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, December 1, 2006; 291(6): C1198 - C1207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Boudina and E. D. Abel Mitochondrial uncoupling: a key contributor to reduced cardiac efficiency in diabetes. Physiology, August 1, 2006; 21: 250 - 258. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. R. Gable, J. W. Stephens, J. A. Cooper, G. J. Miller, and S. E. Humphries Variation in the UCP2-UCP3 Gene Cluster Predicts the Development of Type 2 Diabetes in Healthy Middle-Aged Men. Diabetes, May 1, 2006; 55(5): 1504 - 1511. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Casas, M. A. Gijon, A. G. Vigo, M. S. Crespo, J. Balsinde, and M. A. Balboa Overexpression of Cytosolic Group IVA Phospholipase A2 Protects Cells from Ca2+-dependent Death J. Biol. Chem., March 3, 2006; 281(9): 6106 - 6116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. P. Breen, S. G. Gouin, A. F. Murphy, L. R. Haines, A. M. Jackson, T. W. Pearson, P. V. Murphy, and R. K. Porter On the Mechanism of Mitochondrial Uncoupling Protein 1 Function J. Biol. Chem., January 27, 2006; 281(4): 2114 - 2119. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. J. McLeod, A. Aziz, R. F. Hoyt Jr., J. P. McCoy Jr., and M. N. Sack Uncoupling Proteins 2 and 3 Function in Concert to Augment Tolerance to Cardiac Ischemia J. Biol. Chem., September 30, 2005; 280(39): 33470 - 33476. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. D. MacLellan, M. F. Gerrits, A. Gowing, P. J.S. Smith, M. B. Wheeler, and M.-E. Harper Physiological Increases in Uncoupling Protein 3 Augment Fatty Acid Oxidation and Decrease Reactive Oxygen Species Production Without Uncoupling Respiration in Muscle Cells Diabetes, August 1, 2005; 54(8): 2343 - 2350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Ravnskjaer, M. Boergesen, B. Rubi, J. K. Larsen, T. Nielsen, J. Fridriksson, P. Maechler, and S. Mandrup Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor {alpha} (PPAR{alpha}) Potentiates, whereas PPAR{gamma} Attenuates, Glucose-Stimulated Insulin Secretion in Pancreatic {beta}-Cells Endocrinology, August 1, 2005; 146(8): 3266 - 3276. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Bai, H. Onuma, X. Bai, A. V. Medvedev, M. Misukonis, J. B. Weinberg, W. Cao, J. Robidoux, L. M. Floering, K. W. Daniel, et al. Persistent Nuclear Factor-{kappa}B Activation in Ucp2-/- Mice Leads to Enhanced Nitric Oxide and Inflammatory Cytokine Production J. Biol. Chem., May 13, 2005; 280(19): 19062 - 19069. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Olsson, M. Bohlooly-Y, S. M. Fitzgerald, F. Frick, A. Ljungberg, B. Ahren, J. Tornell, G. Bergstrom, and J. Oscarsson Bovine Growth Hormone Transgenic Mice Are Resistant to Diet-Induced Obesity but Develop Hyperphagia, Dyslipidemia, and Diabetes on a High-Fat Diet Endocrinology, February 1, 2005; 146(2): 920 - 930. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Jaburek, S. Miyamoto, P. Di Mascio, K. D. Garlid, and P. Jezek Hydroperoxy Fatty Acid Cycling Mediated by Mitochondrial Uncoupling Protein UCP2 J. Biol. Chem., December 17, 2004; 279(51): 53097 - 53102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Hoerter, M.-d.-M. Gonzalez-Barroso, E. Couplan, P. Mateo, C. Gelly, A.-M. Cassard-Doulcier, P. Diolez, and F. Bouillaud Mitochondrial Uncoupling Protein 1 Expressed in the Heart of Transgenic Mice Protects Against Ischemic-Reperfusion Damage Circulation, August 3, 2004; 110(5): 528 - 533. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. D'Adamo, L. Perego, M. Cardellini, M. A. Marini, S. Frontoni, F. Andreozzi, A. Sciacqua, D. Lauro, P. Sbraccia, M. Federici, et al. The -866A/A Genotype in the Promoter of the Human Uncoupling Protein 2 Gene Is Associated With Insulin Resistance and Increased Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Diabetes, July 1, 2004; 53(7): 1905 - 1910. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Rousset, M.-C. Alves-Guerra, J. Mozo, B. Miroux, A.-M. Cassard-Doulcier, F. Bouillaud, and D. Ricquier The Biology of Mitochondrial Uncoupling Proteins Diabetes, February 1, 2004; 53(90001): S130 - 135. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				S. Le Fur, C. Le Stunff, C. Dos Santos, and P. Bougneres The Common -866 G/A Polymorphism in the Promoter of Uncoupling Protein 2 Is Associated With Increased Carbohydrate and Decreased Lipid Oxidation in Juvenile Obesity Diabetes, January 1, 2004; 53(1): 235 - 239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]