|
Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M004651200 on June 29, 2000
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 275, Issue 40, 31289-31296, October 6, 2000
The Nucleoporin Nup98 Is a Site for GDP/GTP Exchange on Ran and
Termination of Karyopherin 2-mediated Nuclear Import*
Beatriz M. A.
Fontoura ,
Günter
Blobel §, and
Nabeel R.
Yaseen ¶
From the Laboratory of Cell Biology, Howard
Hughes Medical Institute, The Rockefeller University,
New York, New York 10021 and the ¶ Department of Pathology,
Weill Medical College, Cornell University,
New York, New York 10021
Received for publication, May 30, 2000, and in revised form, June 28, 2000
 |
ABSTRACT |
Karyopherin 2 (Kap 2, transportin) binds the
M9 sequence of human ribonucleoprotein A1 and mediates its nuclear
import. Here we show a role for the nucleoporin Nup98 in the
disassembly of Kap 2 import complexes at the nuclear side of the
nuclear pore complex (NPC). Kap 2 bound to a region at the N terminus
of Nup98 that contains an M9-like sequence. The human ribonucleoprotein A1 M9 sequence competed with Nup98 for binding to Kap 2, indicating that Nup98 can dissociate Kap 2 from its substrate. Binding of Kap 2 to Nup98 was inhibited by Ran loaded with guanylyl
imidophosphate, suggesting that RanGTP dissociates Kap 2 from Nup98.
RanGTP is produced from RanGDP through nucleotide exchange mediated by
RanGEF (RCC1). Immunoelectron microscopy and nucleotide exchange assays revealed functional RanGEF on both sides of the NPC. On the nuclear side, the localization of RanGEF coincided with that of Nup98. RanGEF
bound to Nup98 at a region adjacent to the Kap 2-binding site. These
findings suggest a model where 1) import substrate is released from
Kap 2 at the nucleoplasmic side of the NPC by competition with the
Nup98 M9-like site, 2) Nup98-bound RanGEF catalyzes the formation of
RanGTP, and 3) RanGTP dissociates Kap 2 from Nup98 allowing repeated
cycles of import.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Transport of proteins and nucleic acids between the nucleus and
cytoplasm occurs through nuclear pore complexes
(NPCs)1 (1). The vertebrate
NPC is a supramolecular structure of 125 million daltons, which is
approximately 30 times the size of a ribosome (2). Each NPC is composed
of a central cylinder surrounded by a spoke-ring structure that anchors
the cylinder to the nuclear envelope (3, 4). Filaments extending
50-100 nm emanate from this central core into the cytoplasm and
nucleoplasm (5, 6). On the nucleoplasmic side, these filaments form a
basket-like structure (7). In the mammalian NPC, all these structures
together consist of approximately 50 different proteins termed
nucleoporins (8).
A subset of nucleoporins that contain Phe-Gly repeats (FG nucleoporins)
constitute docking sites for transport factors at the NPC (9-12). Some
of these nucleoporins are localized asymmetrically at the NPC. Nup358
and Nup214, for example, are associated with the cytoplasmic filaments,
whereas Nup98 and Nup153 are localized at or near the basket on the
nucleoplasmic side (10, 13-16). On the other hand, p62 appears to be
symmetrically localized on both sides close to the midplane of
the NPC (17, 18). The asymmetric distribution of nucleoporins and
their different affinities for import and export complexes may be
important in determining the directionality of transport.
Nup98 contains a number of FG repeats in its N-terminal portion that
act as docking sites during import (10). In addition, Nup98 appears to
be involved in multiple RNA export pathways (19, 20). Interestingly,
Nup98 has been described as a frequent target for chromosomal
rearrangements in acute leukemia, and its N-terminal FG repeat
region is present in all leukemia-associated Nup98 fusions that have
been characterized to date (21-32). These findings suggest a link
between the function of Nup98 in nuclear transport and its role in leukemogenesis.
Nuclear import and export of molecules involve interactions of soluble
transport factors with their cargoes and with the NPC. Transport
receptors bind import or export signals present in their cargoes and
are collectively known as karyopherins (also called importins or
exportins). Nuclear import of proteins bearing a classical nuclear
localization signal (cNLS) was the first to be characterized at the
molecular level. Import of a cNLS-bearing protein is mediated by a
heterodimer of karyopherin (Kap ) and karyopherin 1 (Kap 1).
Kap interacts directly with the cNLS, whereas Kap 1 binds to
nucleoporins resulting in the docking of the complex to the NPC.
Other soluble factors are involved in the translocation process through
the NPC, including the small GTPase Ran, p10 (also known as
NTF2), and the Ran-binding protein RanBP1 (33-35).
Other members of the Kap family serve as import receptors for
other classes of proteins that have non-classical NLSs. In many of
these cases the Kap binds directly to the NLS of its import cargo
rather than through a Kap -like adapter. For example, hnRNP A1 has an
NLS rich in aromatic residues and glycine, called M9, that is directly
bound by Kap 2 (transportin1) resulting in docking of the complex at
the NPC and its import into the nucleus (36, 37). Additional import and
export pathways have been identified and are reviewed elsewhere
(33-35).
Ran is a small GTPase that cycles between a GDP-bound form (RanGDP) and
a GTP-bound form (RanGTP) and plays an important role in both import
and export (38-40). Interconversion of RanGDP and RanGTP is regulated
by the Ran GTPase-activating protein RanGAP1 and the Ran guanine
nucleotide exchange factor RanGEF (also called RCC1). RanGAP1 is
localized in the cytosol and at the cytoplasmic face of the NPC and
catalyzes nucleotide hydrolysis by RanGTP to form RanGDP (41). RanGEF
is localized predominantly in the nucleus and catalyzes nucleotide
exchange favoring the generation of RanGTP, since the intracellular
concentration of GTP is higher than that of GDP (39, 40, 42-44). These
findings suggest that the nucleus has a higher concentration of RanGTP
than the cytoplasm. Ran appears to be imported primarily in the
GDP-bound form, but functional RanGEF is required in order for Ran to
accumulate in the nucleus, presumably as RanGTP (45).
The mechanisms by which import complexes travel through the NPC and are
disassembled in the nucleus are not well understood. The process is
thought to involve several steps. Kap s interact strongly with RanGTP
but not with RanGDP. Binding of RanGTP to import Kap s results in the
release of their cargo. Since a higher concentration of RanGTP is
predicted in the nucleus, it is thought that this reaction results in
the release of cargo from import Kap s in the nucleus (46-48).
However, there is evidence that Kap 2 can deliver its cargo to the
nucleus in the absence of Ran when Kap 2 and the cargo are provided
in equimolar concentrations (49). Thus the release of cargo from the
nuclear side of the nuclear pore complex may also occur by
Ran-independent mechanisms.
In this study, we have focused on the role of the nucleoporin Nup98 in
the termination of Kap 2-mediated nuclear import at the nuclear side
of the NPC. We show that Kap 2 binds to the N terminus of Nup98 at a
region that contains an hnRNP A1 M9-like sequence. This binding is
prevented by an M9-containing protein, indicating that Nup98 binds to
the cargo-binding site of Kap 2. Thus, Nup98 may disassemble the
Kap 2-M9 import complex at the nuclear side of the NPC providing a
mechanism for the Ran-independent import by Kap 2 mentioned above.
The resulting Kap 2-Nup98 complex would need to be disassembled
before Kap 2 can be recycled for further rounds of import. This
function is probably performed by RanGTP since our data show that
RanGMPPNP inhibits binding of Kap 2 to Nup98. However, since Ran
traverses the NPC on its way to the nucleus primarily in the GDP-bound
form (45, 50), a mechanism is needed for the local production of RanGTP
in order to dissociate Kap 2 from Nup98. RanGEF is the only known
nucleotide exchange factor for Ran and is thought to be confined to the
inside of the nucleus in association with chromatin (51). Here we show that RanGEF, in addition to its intranuclear localization, is also
associated with the NPC. By using immunoelectron microscopy, we show
that RanGEF is present on both the cytoplasmic and nucleoplasmic sides
of the NPC. On the nucleoplasmic side, the localization of RanGEF
coincides with the previously determined localization of Nup98 (10). By
using in vitro nucleotide exchange assays we found that
nuclear envelope-associated RanGEF is functional. Consistent with the
ultrastructural data, RanGEF indeed bound to Nup98, at the FG repeat
region immediately downstream of the Kap 2-binding site. These data
are integrated into a model for the termination of Kap 2-mediated
nuclear import at the nuclear side of the NPC.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Plasmid Construction and Protein Expression--
Wild-type Nup98
precursor was cloned into pAlter-MAX as described previously (52). All
truncated mutants were generated by PCR using the wild-type Nup98
precursor as template. An oligonucleotide complementary to the 5' end
of the indicated region for each mutant (see Fig. 3) and containing a
SalI site was used in conjunction with an antisense
oligonucleotide complementary to sequences at the 3' end of the
indicated regions in Fig. 3 and containing a NotI site. The
resulting PCR products were digested with SalI and
NotI and ligated into the SalI/NotI
sites of myc-pAlter-MAX. The human NUP98 open reading
frame was amplified by PCR from a bone marrow cDNA library
(CLONTECH, Palo Alto, CA) and subcloned into the
BamHI and SalI sites of pGEX4T3 (Amersham
Pharmacia Biotech) to produce a GST-Nup98 fusion. The GST-Nup98 fusion
protein was purified from bacterial lysate by binding to
glutathione-Sepharose beads (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech).
The human KAP 2 gene subcloned into
pGEX4T3 containing a Tev protease cleavage site, and the
maltose-binding protein fused with M3 (MBP-M3) was a kind gift from
Yuh-Min Chook (53). Expression and purification of GST-Kap 2 was
performed as originally described (53). The maltose-binding protein
(MBP) was obtained from New England Biolabs (Beverly, MA). The human
RANGEF open reading frame was amplified by PCR from a
bone marrow cDNA library (CLONTECH, Palo Alto,
CA) and subcloned into the BamHI and SalI sites
of pGEX4T3 to produce a GST-RanGEF fusion. The GST-RanGEF fusion protein was purified from bacterial lysate by binding to
glutathione-Sepharose beads and either kept immobilized on the beads or
eluted by thrombin cleavage. Human recombinant Ran protein
loaded with either GDP or GMPPNP was a kind gift from Yuh-Min Chook
(53).
In Vitro Binding Assays--
All wild-type and Nup98 mutant
proteins were in vitro transcribed and translated using a
coupled reticulocyte lysate transcription/translation system (Promega
Corp., Madison, WI), in the presence of [35S]methionine,
according to manufacturer's instructions. Binding reactions were
carried out as described (54) using 10 µl (unless otherwise
indicated) of in vitro transcribed and translated proteins as indicated in the figure legends. Bound and unbound fractions were
separated on SDS-PAGE, and the gels were analyzed by autoradiography. Binding reactions with bacterially expressed recombinant proteins were
carried out as described previously (54).
Isolation and Fractionation of Nuclear Envelopes--
Rat
liver nuclei were isolated as described (55) and stored frozen at
80 °C in 100-unit aliquots (1 unit = 3 × 106 nuclei). Nuclear envelopes were prepared by a
modification of the procedure described by Dwyer and Blobel (56).
Nuclei were thawed and pelleted at 500 rpm in a tabletop
microcentrifuge for 1 min. After removing the supernatant, the pellet
was resuspended to a final concentration of 100 units/ml by dropwise
addition of cold buffer A, 0.1 mM MgCl2,
protease inhibitors (0.5 mM phenylmethanesulfonyl fluoride,
1 µg/ml leupeptin, 1 µg/ml pepstatin A, and 18 µg/ml aprotinin),
5 µg/ml DNase I (Sigma), and 5 µg/ml RNase A (Sigma) with constant
vortexing. The nuclei were then immediately diluted to 20 units/ml by
addition of ice-cold buffer B, 10% sucrose, 20 mM
triethanolamine (pH 8.5), 0.1 mM MgCl2, 1 mM dithiothreitol (DTT), and protease inhibitors, again
with constant vortexing. Following a 15-min incubation on ice, the
suspension was underlaid with 5 ml of ice-cold buffer C, 30% sucrose,
20 mM triethanolamine (pH 7.5), 0.1 mM
MgCl2, 1 mM DTT, and protease inhibitors, and centrifuged at 4,100 × g in a swinging bucket rotor
(Sorvall type HB-4) for 15 min at 4 °C. After removing the
supernatant and sucrose cushion, the pellet was resuspended to a final
concentration of 100 units/ml in ice cold buffer D, 10% sucrose, 20 mM triethanolamine (pH 7.5), 0.1 mM
MgCl2, 1 mM DTT, and protease inhibitors. The suspension was immediately underlaid with 5 ml of buffer C and pelleted
as above. The pellet resulting from this second extraction is
operationally defined as the nuclear envelope fraction.
Immunogold Electron Microscopy--
Isolated nuclear envelopes
were fixed for 15 min in 2.5% formaldehyde in STM (10% sucrose, 20 mM triethanolamine HCl (pH 7.5), 0.1 mM
MgCl2) and centrifuged at 2,000 × g for 5 min onto 35-mm tissue culture dishes. The pelleted nuclear envelopes
were washed three times with 1% BSA, 68 mM NaCl, 13 mM KCl, 15 mM KH2PO4, 40 mM Na2HPO4, 0.5 mM
phenylmethanesulfonyl fluoride and incubated with two goat polyclonal
anti-RanGEF antibodies, RCC1(N-19) and RCC1(C-20), diluted 1:10 (Santa
Cruz Biotechnology). Bound antibodies were detected with rabbit
anti-goat IgG conjugated with 5-nm gold (Ted Pella, Redding, CA)
diluted 1:50.
Nucleotide Exchange Reactions--
Recombinant human Ran
was prepared and loaded with [ -32P]GTP as described
(57). Exchange reactions were carried out at room temperature for 30 min in 300 µl of STM in the presence of 1 mM GDP. The
reactions were stopped by adding 300 µl of cold transport buffer with
1 mM DTT and 1 mg/ml BSA on ice and applied onto BA85 filters (Schleicher & Schuell) by vacuum aspiration. The filters were
washed with 5 ml of cold transport buffer, 1 mM DTT, 1 mg/ml BSA and allowed to dry before scintillation counting.
 |
RESULTS |
The N Terminus of Nup98 Contains an M9-like Sequence That Binds
Karyopherin 2--
We have previously shown that Nup98 is
synthesized as a precursor derived from at least two alternatively
spliced mRNAs (52). The Nup98 precursor is cleaved at the C
terminus, generating Nup98 (residues 1-863) and a 6-kDa C-terminal
fragment (residues 864-920), and the Nup98-Nup96 precursor is cleaved
at the same site generating Nup98 (residues 1-863) and Nup96-(residues
864-1712) (52). Nup98 can be divided into two domains (Fig.
1A). The N-terminal half contains the FG-containing repeat domain (residues 1-497), and the
second half of the molecule contains the highly conserved cleavage site
domain.

View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Nup98 and Nup153 contain sequences
similar to hnRNPA1 M9. A, schematic representation of
the Nup98 precursor protein and hnRNP A1. The hatched region
represents the FG-containing repeat domain in Nup98. The
arrow indicates the Nup98 cleavage site. The locations of
the hnRNP A1 M9 and M3 sequences and the Nup98 M9-like sequence are
indicated by thick lines. B, amino acid sequence
alignments of the M9-like sequences of Nup98 and Nup153 with the
hnRNPA1 M9. Amino acids are numbered from the initiating methionine in
each protein. Boxes and shadings indicate
sequence identity and homology, respectively.
|
|
An alignment search showed that the N-terminal domain of Nup98 contains
an hnRNP A1 M9-like sequence between residues 25-60 (Fig. 1). Using
the Clustal method, the M9 sequence of hnRNP A1 and the M9-like
sequence of Nup98 are approximately 30% identical and 56% similar
(Fig. 1B). No other sequence similarity was observed between
Nup98 and hnRNP A1. An M9-like sequence has previously been reported on
Nup153 (58). This sequence has approximately 20% identity and 47%
similarity to that of hnRNP A1 M9 (Fig. 1B) and is a site
for Kap 2 binding (58). Previous evidence from overlay assays
suggests that Nup98 also binds to Kap 2 (36). To determine whether
the M9-like sequence in Nup98 is indeed a Kap 2-binding site,
in vitro binding assays were performed using bacterially
expressed recombinant Kap 2. Full-length Nup98 could be expressed in
soluble form either with a GST tag in bacteria (rGST-Nup98) or in a
rabbit reticulocyte lysate in vitro
transcription/translation system (ivNup98). With purified rGST-Nup98 a
direct interaction between Nup98 and Kap 2 could be demonstrated (see
below). However, as some of the truncated Nup98 mutants were insoluble
when expressed in bacteria (data not shown), a rabbit reticulocyte
in vitro transcription and translation system was used to
map the Kap 2-binding site on Nup98.
GST-tagged recombinant Kap 2 was immobilized on glutathione-Sepharose
beads, incubated with ivNup98, and the bound and unbound fractions were
visualized by SDS-PAGE and autoradiography (Fig. 2A). In vitro
transcribed/translated Nup96 and luciferase were used as controls.
Nup98 bound to GST-Kap 2, whereas Nup96 and luciferase showed no
significant binding (Fig. 2A). The observed binding of Nup98
to Kap 2 could be either direct or it could be indirect,
i.e. mediated by one or more of the numerous proteins present in the reticulocyte lysate. To determine whether the binding is
direct, rGST-Nup98 was immobilized on glutathione-Sepharose beads and
incubated with recombinant Kap 2. Kap 2 bound to rGST-Nup98 (Fig.
2B) showing that the two proteins interact directly. As a
control, Kap 2 was incubated with GST immobilized on
glutathione-Sepharose beads to show that Kap 2 does not interact with
GST moiety (Fig. 2B). We conclude that the binding of
Kap 2 to Nup98 is both specific and direct.

View larger version (47K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Nup98 binds to Kap 2
in vitro. A, Nup98, Nup96, and
luciferase were obtained by transcription/translation in a reticulocyte
lysate in the presence of [35S]methionine and incubated
with bacterially expressed GST (1 µg) or GST-Kap 2 (1 µg)
immobilized on glutathione-Sepharose beads as described under
"Experimental Procedures." Bound and unbound fractions were
analyzed by SDS-PAGE followed by autoradiography. B,
recombinant GST-Nup98 (1 µg) or recombinant GST, immobilized on
glutathione-Sepharose beads, were each incubated with recombinant
Kap 2 (1 µg) as described under "Experimental Procedures."
Bound and unbound fractions were analyzed by SDS-PAGE and Coomassie
Brilliant Blue staining.
|
|
To map the Kap 2-binding site on Nup98, a series of Nup98 truncation
mutants were constructed and expressed in the reticulocyte lysate
system. These truncation mutants were then incubated with immobilized
GST-Kap 2 (Fig. 3). Amino acids 1-316
were shown to constitute the necessary region for binding of Nup98 to
Kap 2. As mentioned above (see Fig. 1), this region contains the
M9-like sequence (amino acids 25-60) as well as FG repeats. Thus,
Kap 2 binds to the FG-containing repeat region of Nup98, a region
that includes and extends beyond the M9-like sequence.

View larger version (42K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Kap 2 binds to the
FG-containing repeat region at the N terminus of Nup98 that includes
the M9-like sequence and a downstream region (residues 1-316).
A, schematic representation of the wild-type and truncated
mutants of Nup98. Binding activity is indicated on the right
based on the ratio between the bound and unbound fractions shown in
B. B, wild-type and truncated mutants of Nup98
were obtained by transcription/translation in a reticulocyte in the
presence of [35S]methionine and incubated with
immobilized recombinant GST-Kap 2 (1 µg) as described under
"Experimental Procedures." Bound and unbound fractions were
analyzed by SDS-PAGE followed by autoradiography.
|
|
Nup98 and M9 Compete for the Binding to Kap 2--
The presence
of an M9-like sequence in Nup98 led us to investigate whether Nup98
would compete with M9 for binding to Kap 2. The M9 sequence of hnRNP
A1 is contained within a larger sequence, called M3 (Fig.
1A), that appears to bind to Kap 2 more efficiently (37).
The M3 fragment was expressed in bacteria as a fusion protein with MBP
and used in the competition studies. In vitro binding assays
were performed with immobilized GST-Kap 2 and in vitro
expressed Nup98 in the absence or presence of either MBP or MBP fused
to M3 (Fig. 4). Most of the binding of
Nup98 to Kap 2 was abolished in the presence of MBP-M3 but not in the
presence of MBP alone (Fig. 4). These results indicate that Nup98 is
able to compete for the substrate-binding site on Kap 2. Thus, when Kap 2 with its bound cargo reaches the nuclear side of the NPC, Nup98
might release the cargo. In order to complete the import cycle, Kap 2
would then need to be released from Nup98. Since Ran is known to
regulate the assembly and disassembly of nuclear transport complexes,
we sought to determine the effect of Ran on the binding of Kap 2 to
Nup98.

View larger version (63K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Interaction of Nup98 with
Kap 2 is inhibited by MBP-M3. Nup98 was
transcribed and translated in vitro in the presence of
[35S]methionine, and incubated with immobilized
recombinant GST-Kap 2 (1 µg), in the absence or presence of MBP (20 µg) or MBP-M3 (20 µg). Bound and unbound fractions were analyzed by
SDS-PAGE and autoradiography.
|
|
Binding of Kap 2 to Nup98 Is Regulated by Ran--
In
vitro binding assays were performed with immobilized GST-Kap 2
and in vitro expressed Nup98 in the absence or presence of
Ran loaded with either GDP or GMPPNP (a non-hydrolyzable GTP analogue).
As shown in Fig. 5, RanGMPPNP inhibited
the binding of Kap 2 to Nup98, whereas RanGDP had no such effect.
These results indicate that RanGTP could dissociate Kap 2 from Nup98
at the nucleoplasmic side of the NPC. Thus, during import, the
Kap 2-substrate complex could be dissociated by binding of Kap 2 to
the M9-like sequence of Nup98, leading to the release of substrate. The
next step would be to dissociate Kap 2 from Nup98, which can be
accomplished by RanGTP. However, Ran is imported through the NPC
primarily in its GDP-bound form, and conversion of RanGDP to RanGTP can only be accomplished by RanGEF (45, 50). RanGEF is known to be present
in the nuclear interior in association with chromatin (51) but has not
been shown in association with the NPC. It was therefore of interest to
determine whether RanGEF is also found at the NPC where it would
catalyze the conversion of RanGDP to RanGTP in order to release Kap 2
from Nup98.

View larger version (63K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Kap 2 binding to
Nup98 is inhibited by RanGMPPNP. Nup98 was transcribed and
translated in vitro in the presence of
[35S]methionine and incubated with immobilized
recombinant GST-Kap 2 (1 µg), in the absence or presence of
RanGMPPNP (15 µg) or RanGDP (15 µg). Bound and unbound fractions
were analyzed by SDS-PAGE and autoradiography.
|
|
RanGEF Is Associated with the NPC--
Isolated rat liver nuclear
envelopes were probed with antibodies to RanGEF followed by secondary
gold-conjugated antibody. RanGEF was found associated with both sides
of the NPC (Fig. 6A). On the
cytoplasmic side, the distribution of gold particles gave a mean
distance of 42.9 nm from the midplane of the nuclear envelope (n = 171). On the nucleoplasmic side, the mean distance
was 39.6 nm (n = 164) (Fig. 6B).
Interestingly, the localization of RanGEF at the nucleoplasmic side of
the NPC coincides with the previously determined localization of Nup98
(mean distance of 39 nm) (10).

View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Immunolocalization of RanGEF to the
cytoplasmic and nucleoplasmic sides of the NPC. A,
isolated rat liver nuclear envelopes were probed with RanGEF antibodies
and 5 nm gold-coupled secondary antibodies. Envelopes were processed
for thin sectioning and observed by EM. The cytoplasmic face of the
NPCs is oriented toward the top of each micrograph. The cytoplasmic
side of the NPCs is recognized by the presence of blebs and
discontinuities in the outer nuclear membrane (41). Bar = 0.1 µm. B, distribution of the distance of gold
particles from the midplane of the nuclear envelope. The negative and
positive numbers represent the nucleoplasmic and cytoplasmic sides,
respectively.
|
|
To demonstrate further the presence of functional RanGEF at the NPC, we
tested our nuclear envelope preparation for RanGEF exchange activity.
Ran was labeled with [ -32P]GTP and incubated with
excess unlabeled GDP in the absence or presence of isolated rat liver
nuclear envelopes or recombinant RanGEF (Fig.
7). Exchange activity results in
replacement of labeled nucleotide by unlabeled nucleotide and is
measured as a decrease in Ran-associated radioactivity. As shown in
Fig. 7, nuclear envelopes exhibited exchange activity comparable to
that of recombinant RanGEF. These results demonstrate that functional
RanGEF is present at the NPC.

View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Nuclear envelopes contain functional
RanGEF. Ran labeled with [ -32P]GTP was incubated
with excess unlabeled GDP in the absence or presence of isolated rat
liver nuclear envelopes or recombinant RanGEF. The reactions were
applied onto filters, and radioactivity retained on the filters was
measured in a scintillation counter.
|
|
Nup98 Contains a RanGEF-binding Domain--
Since the
sub-localization of RanGEF on the nuclear side of the NPC coincided
with that of Nup98 (Fig. 8), we tested
whether RanGEF binds to Nup98. Immobilized GST-RanGEF bound to ivNup98 but not to Nup96 (Fig. 8A), indicating that the binding is
specific. To determine whether the binding is direct, immobilized
recombinant GST-Nup98 was incubated with recombinant RanGEF. RanGEF
bound to Nup98 in this assay as well (Fig. 8B),
demonstrating that the two proteins interact directly. RanGEF did not
bind to immobilized GST alone (Fig. 8B) confirming that the
binding of RanGEF to Nup98 is specific.

View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 8.
Interaction of Nup98 with
RanGEF. A, Nup98 and Nup96 were transcribed and
translated in vitro in the presence of
[35S]methionine and incubated with immobilized
recombinant GST-RanGEF (1 µg). Bound and unbound fractions were
analyzed by SDS-PAGE and autoradiography. B, bacterially
expressed immobilized GST-Nup98 or GST were incubated with
recombinant RanGEF, and bound and unbound fractions were visualized by
SDS-PAGE and Coomassie Brilliant Blue staining. C, wild-type
(wt) and truncated mutants of Nup98 were in
vitro transcribed and translated in the presence of
[35S]methionine and incubated with immobilized
recombinant GST-RanGEF (1 µg). A schematic representation of these
proteins is shown in Fig. 3. Bound and unbound fractions were analyzed
by SDS-PAGE followed by autoradiography.
|
|
In order to map the RanGEF-binding site on Nup98, in vitro
binding assays were carried out with immobilized GST-RanGEF and in vitro expressed wild-type Nup98 or a series of truncated
mutants of Nup98 (Fig. 8C, see also schematics in Fig. 3).
These results showed that the region between residues 316-405 of Nup98
is necessary for RanGEF binding. Thus the RanGEF-binding site is
immediately downstream of the Kap 2-binding site on Nup98, and
nucleotide exchange at this location would make RanGTP immediately
available for dissociation of Kap 2 from Nup98.
 |
DISCUSSION |
Nuclear import of macromolecules depends on interactions among
import substrates, karyopherins, other soluble transport factors, and
nucleoporins. Despite the advances made during the last decade in
identifying the major mediators of nuclear import, much remains to be
elucidated about the actual steps that result in the translocation of
import substrates through the NPC and their delivery to their destinations inside the nucleus.
Different karyopherins may utilize different mechanisms for import and
may selectively interact with different subsets of nucleoporins
(10-12). Recent studies on the molecular mechanisms of import have
revealed differences between the import mechanisms of Kap 1 and
Kap 2. Kap 1-mediated import requires RanGTP, and recycling of
Kap 1 requires GTP hydrolysis (54, 59). On the nuclear side, RanGTP
binding to Kap 1 seems to be required for release of import substrate
into the nucleus (60). On the cytoplasmic side of the NPC, Kap 1 and
RanGTP form a ternary complex with the RanBP1 homologous domains of
Nup358. Interaction of Kap and cNLS with this complex stimulates GTP
hydrolysis by RanGAP1 allowing the reinitiation of import of a
cNLS-bearing substrate in permeabilized cells (54).
The situation is different with Kap 2, which binds its import
substrate directly. There is evidence that in the presence of equimolar
concentrations of Kap 2 and its import substrate, Ran is not required
for nuclear accumulation of the substrate in permeabilized cell assays
(49). However, when Kap 2 is provided in smaller amounts,
necessitating repeated rounds of import for delivery of substrate into
the nucleus, RanGTP becomes a requirement for import. These data
suggest the following: (i) that substrate release from the nuclear side
of the NPC does not require Ran, and (ii) that RanGTP is required for
recycling of Kap 2. The data presented here provide mechanisms for
both of these observations. As discussed below, the Ran-independent
release of substrate probably occurs through competition of the Nup98
M9-like sequence with the M9 sequence on the import substrate. As
binding of RanGTP to Kap 2 results in dissociation of Kap 2 from
Nup98, recycling of Kap 2 could occur through the local production of
RanGTP by RanGEF that is bound to Nup98.
Nup98 and its yeast homolog, N-Nup145, have been implicated in RNA
export pathways (20, 61-63). In this study, we have analyzed the role
of Nup98 in import, specifically in the disassembly of Kap 2
complexes at the nucleoplasmic side of the NPC and the recycling of
Kap 2. We have shown that Kap 2 binds to the N terminus of Nup98 at
a site that contains an hnRNP A1 M9-like sequence. The M9-like sequence
of Nup98 and M9 competed for binding to Kap 2 indicating that binding
of Kap 2 to Nup98 would result in release of substrate from the
nucleoplasmic side of the NPC once the import complex arrived there. A
similar reaction may occur on Nup153 as well. An M9-like sequence has
been described on Nup153 that could release M9 substrates from Kap 2
(58). These M9-like sequences are likely to bind to the
substrate-binding site of Kap 2. However, the Kap 2-binding sites
in both Nup98 (Fig. 3) and Nup153 (58) extend beyond the M9-like
sequence. Thus the interactions of Kap 2 with these nucleoporins may
not be limited to its substrate-binding site. The Kap 2-Nup98 complex
thus formed would be dissociated by RanGTP allowing the recycling of
Kap 2 for further rounds of import. We have shown that RanGEF is
associated with both sides of the NPC, and we identified a
RanGEF-binding site on Nup98 immediately C-terminal to the
Kap 2-binding site. This binding is likely to be physiologically
significant since we have shown that the localization of RanGEF at the
nuclear side of the NPC coincides with that of Nup98 (10), and we
demonstrated nucleotide exchange with isolated nuclear envelopes (Figs.
7 and 8). Nup98-associated RanGEF would catalyze the conversion of
RanGDP to RanGTP which would then bind to Kap 2 and dissociate it
from Nup98 (Fig. 9).

View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 9.
Model for the role of Nup98 in
Kap 2-mediated nuclear import. See text.
S = import substrate; GEF = RanGEF.
|
|
Our finding that functional RanGEF is associated with the NPC may have
more general implications for nuclear import pathways involving
nucleoporins and karyopherins other than Nup98 and Kap 2. It
indicates that nucleotide exchange on Ran may occur at the NPC as an
integral part of the transport process rather than being confined to
the nuclear interior as previously thought. Previous data have been
suggestive of the occurrence of nucleotide exchange on Ran at the NPC
during Kap 1-mediated import (60, 64). The binding of Kap 1 to the
nuclear side of the NPC is inhibited by RanGTP (65). Consistent with
this finding, the binding of yeast Kap 1 to the nucleoplasmic yeast
nucleoporin Nup1 is inhibited by RanGTP (46). Furthermore, the binding
of both Kap 1 and Kap 2 to Nup153 is inhibited by RanGTP (58).
Thus, RanGTP is involved in the release of more than one karyopherin
from nucleoporins at the nuclear side of the NPC. Further investigation
is needed to determine whether these nucleoporins contain
RanGEF-binding sites similar to Nup98. An alternative possibility is
that Nup98-bound RanGEF provides the high local concentration of RanGTP
needed for the release of karyopherins from other nucleoporins at the nuclear side of the NPC. Although RanGTP is required for recycling of
Kap 2 for repeated rounds of import, binding of RanGTP to Kap 2 prevents the binding of import substrate (47). Therefore, the Kap 2-RanGTP complex would probably need to be dissociated before further rounds of import can occur. The exact site and mechanism by
which this is accomplished remain to be elucidated.
A role for RanGEF has also been proposed in the disassembly of nuclear
export complexes, which presumably would occur at the cytoplasmic side
of the NPC (66). In vitro studies with yeast proteins have
suggested a role for RanGEF in disassembly of export complexes
involving the nucleoporin Nup42 (66). Consistent with this notion,
Nup42 has been recently localized to the cytoplasmic side of the NPC
where disassembly of export complexes would be expected to occur (67).
Our data (Fig. 6) provide evidence that RanGEF is indeed associated
with the cytoplasmic side of the NPC. The mechanism of this association
and the exact nucleoporin(s) involved remain to be determined. However,
since it has been previously shown that RanGEF can form a ternary
complex with RanBP1 (68), it is possible that a similar complex may
form on the RanBP1-homologous domains of Nup358 at the cytoplasmic
fibrils of the NPC. Indeed, the distance of a major portion of
NPC-bound RanGEF on the cytoplasmic side is consistent with binding to
Nup358 (15, 69).
Finally, the binding of RanGEF to the NPC may play a role in its own
import into the nucleus. It has recently been shown that RanGEF can be
imported into the nucleus independently of any added soluble factors
(70). This import may be mediated by the direct binding of RanGEF to
nucleoporins. Kap 1, Kap 2, and exportin-t have similarly been
shown to enter the nucleus independently of added transport factors
(71-73), a phenomenon that may also be mediated by the direct binding
of these karyopherins to nucleoporins.
In summary, we have demonstrated that RanGEF is bound to a site on
Nup98 that is immediately adjacent to an M9-like site. The high local
concentrations of RanGTP generated by RanGEF combined with the M9-like
sequence are likely to cooperate in the disassembly of Kap 2 import
complexes at the nuclear side of the NPC.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We thank Evette Ellison for
excellent technical support and Helen Shio for expert help with the
preparation and analysis of EM samples. We also thank Yuh Min Chook,
Michael Matunis, and Mary S. Moore for useful reagents and helpful discussions.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported in part by the Howard Hughes Medical
Institute.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.
§
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Laboratory of Cell
Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, The Rockefeller University, 1230 York Ave., New York, NY 10021. Tel.: 212-327-8096; Fax:
212-327-7880; E-mail: blobel@rockvax.rockefeller.edu.
Supported by the K08 CA72959 Award from the National
Institutes of Health.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, June 29, 2000, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M004651200
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
NPC, nuclear pore
complex;
NLS, nuclear localization signal;
cNLS, classical nuclear
localization signal;
Kap, karyopherin;
RanBP, Ran-binding protein;
RanGDP, GDP-bound Ran;
RanGTP, GTP-bound Ran;
GMPPNP, guanylyl
imidophosphate;
RanGEF, Ran guanine nucleotide exchange factor;
RCC1, regulator of chromatin condensation 1;
RanGAP1, Ran GTPase activating
protein 1;
FG repeats, Phe-Gly repeats;
GST, glutathione
S-transferase;
hnRNP, human ribonucleoprotein;
PCR, polymerase chain reaction;
MBP, maltose-binding protein;
DTT, dithiothreitol;
PAGE, polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis;
BSA, bovine
serum albumin.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Davis, L. I.
(1995)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
64,
865-896
|
| 2.
|
Reichelt, R.,
Holzenburg, A.,
Buhle, E. L., Jr.,
Jarnik, M.,
Engel, A.,
and Aebi, U.
(1990)
J. Cell Biol.
110,
883-894
|
| 3.
|
Akey, C. W.,
and Radermacher, M.
(1993)
J. Cell Biol.
122,
1-19
|
| 4.
|
Hinshaw, J. E.,
Carragher, B. O.,
and Milligan, R. A.
(1992)
Cell
69,
1133-1141
|
| 5.
|
Goldberg, M. W.,
and Allen, T. D.
(1996)
J. Mol. Biol.
257,
848-865
|
| 6.
|
Cordes, V. C.,
Reidenbach, S.,
Rackwitz, H. R.,
and Franke, W. W.
(1997)
J. Cell Biol.
136,
515-529
|
| 7.
|
Ris, H.
(1991)
EMSA Bull.
21,
54-56
|
| 8.
|
Doye, V.,
and Hurt, E.
(1997)
Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.
9,
401-411
|
| 9.
|
Buss, F.,
Kent, H.,
Stewart, M.,
Bailer, S.,
and Hanover, J.
(1994)
J. Cell Sci.
107,
631-638
|
| 10.
|
Radu, A.,
Moore, M. S.,
and Blobel, G.
(1995)
Cell
81,
215-222
|
| 11.
|
Katahira, J.,
Strasser, K.,
Podtelejnikov, A.,
Mann, M.,
Jung, J. U.,
and Hurt, E.
(1999)
EMBO J.
18,
2593-2609
|
| 12.
|
Kehlenbach, R. H.,
Dickmanns, A.,
Kehlenbach, A.,
Guan, T.,
and Gerace, L.
(1999)
J. Cell Biol.
145,
645-657
|
| 13.
|
Kraemer, D.,
Wozniak, R. W.,
Blobel, G.,
and Radu, A.
(1994)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
91,
1519-1523
|
| 14.
|
Yokoyama, N.,
Hayashi, N.,
Seki, T.,
Pante, N.,
Ohba, T.,
Nishii, K.,
Kuma, K.,
Hayashida, T.,
Miyata, T.,
Aebi, U.,
Fukui, M.,
and Nishimoto, T.
(1995)
Nature
376,
184-188
|
| 15.
|
Wu, J.,
Matunis, M. J.,
Kraemer, D.,
Blobel, G.,
and Coutavas, E.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
14209-14213
|
| 16.
|
Sukegawa, J.,
and Blobel, G.
(1993)
Cell
72,
29-38
|
| 17.
|
Guan, T.,
Muller, S.,
Klier, G.,
Pante, N.,
Blevitt, J. M.,
Haner, M.,
Paschal, B.,
Aebi, U.,
and Gerace, L.
(1995)
Mol. Biol. Cell
6,
1591-1603
|
| 18.
|
Hu, T.,
Guan, T.,
and Gerace, L.
(1996)
J. Cell Biol.
134,
589-601
|
| 19.
|
Pritchard, C. E.,
Fornerod, M.,
Kasper, L. H.,
and van Deursen, J. M.
(1999)
J. Cell Biol.
145,
237-254
|
| 20.
|
Powers, M. A.,
Forbes, D. J.,
Dahlberg, J. E.,
and Lund, E.
(1997)
J. Cell Biol.
136,
241-250
|
| 21.
|
Ahuja, H. G.,
Felix, C. A.,
and Aplan, P. D.
(1999)
Blood
94,
3258-3261
|
| 22.
|
Wong, K. F.,
So, C. C.,
and Kwong, Y. L.
(1999)
Cancer Genet. Cytogenet.
115,
70-72
|
| 23.
|
Raza-Egilmez, S. Z.,
Jani-Sait, S. N.,
Grossi, M.,
Higgins, M. J.,
Shows, T. B.,
and Aplan, P. D.
(1998)
Cancer Res.
58,
4269-4273
|
| 24.
|
Nishiyama, M.,
Arai, Y.,
Tsunematsu, Y.,
Kobayashi, H.,
Asami, K.,
Yabe, M.,
Kato, S.,
Oda, M.,
Eguchi, H.,
Ohki, M.,
and Kaneko, Y.
(1999)
Genes Chromosomes Cancer
26,
215-220
|
| 25.
|
Nakamura, T.,
Yamazaki, Y.,
Hatano, Y.,
and Miura, I.
(1999)
Blood
94,
741-747
|
| 26.
|
Nakamura, T.,
Largaespada, D. A.,
Lee, M. P.,
Johnson, L. A.,
Ohyashiki, K.,
Toyama, K.,
Chen, S. J.,
Willman, C. L.,
Chen, I. M.,
Feinberg, A. P.,
Jenkins, N. A.,
Copeland, N. G.,
and Shaughnessy, J. D., Jr.
(1996)
Nat. Genet.
12,
154-158
|
| 27.
|
Kwong, Y. L.,
and Pang, A.
(1999)
Genes Chromosomes Cancer
25,
70-74
|
| 28.
|
Ikeda, T.,
Ikeda, K.,
Sasaki, K.,
Kawakami, K.,
and Takahara, J.
(1999)
Int. J. Hematol.
69,
160-164
|
| 29.
|
Hussey, D. J.,
Nicola, M.,
Moore, S.,
Peters, G. B.,
and Dobrovic, A.
(1999)
Blood
94,
2072-2079
|
| 30.
|
Hatano, Y.,
Miura, I.,
Nakamura, T.,
Yamazaki, Y.,
Takahashi, N.,
and Miura, A. B.
(1999)
Br. J. Haematol.
107,
600-604
|
| 31.
|
Borrow, J.,
Shearman, A. M.,
Stanton, V. P., Jr.,
Becher, R.,
Collins, T.,
Williams, A. J.,
Dube, I.,
Katz, F.,
Kwong, Y. L.,
Morris, C.,
Ohyashiki, K.,
Toyama, K.,
Rowley, J.,
and Housman, D. E.
(1996)
Nat. Genet.
12,
159-167
|
| 32.
|
Arai, Y.,
Hosoda, F.,
Kobayashi, H.,
Arai, K.,
Hayashi, Y.,
Kamada, N.,
Kaneko, Y.,
and Ohki, M.
(1997)
Blood
89,
3936-3944
|
| 33.
|
Gorlich, D.
(1997)
Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.
9,
412-419
|
| 34.
|
Pemberton, L. F.,
Blobel, G.,
and Rosenblum, J. S.
(1998)
Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.
10,
392-399
|
| 35.
|
Nakielny, S.,
and Dreyfuss, G.
(1999)
Cell
99,
677-690
|
| 36.
|
Bonifaci, N.,
Moroianu, J.,
Radu, A.,
and Blobel, G.
(1997)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
94,
5055-5060
|
| 37.
|
Pollard, V. W.,
Michael, W. M.,
Nakielny, S.,
Siomi, M. C.,
Wang, F.,
and Dreyfuss, G.
(1996)
Cell
86,
985-994
|
| 38.
|
Cole, C. N.,
and Hammell, C. M.
(1998)
Curr. Biol.
8,
R368-R372
|
| 39.
|
Moore, M. S.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
22857-22860
|
| 40.
|
Rush, M. G.,
Drivas, G.,
and D'Eustachio, P.
(1996)
BioEssays
18,
103-112
|
| 41.
|
Matunis, M. J.,
Coutavas, E.,
and Blobel, G.
(1996)
J. Cell Biol.
135,
1457-1470
|
| 42.
|
Seki, T.,
Hayashi, N.,
and Nishimoto, T.
(1996)
J. Biochem. (Tokyo)
120,
207-214
|
| 43.
|
Koepp, D. M.,
and Silver, P. A.
(1996)
Cell
87,
1-4
|
| 44.
|
Avis, J. M.,
and Clarke, P. R.
(1996)
J. Cell Sci.
109,
2423-2427
|
| 45.
|
Ribbeck, K.,
Lipowsky, G.,
Kent, H. M.,
Stewart, M.,
and Gorlich, D.
(1998)
EMBO J.
17,
6587-6598
|
| 46.
|
Rexach, M.,
and Blobel, G.
(1995)
Cell
83,
683-692
|
| 47.
|
Siomi, M. C.,
Eder, P. S.,
Kataoka, N.,
Wan, L.,
Liu, Q.,
and Dreyfuss, G.
(1997)
J. Cell Biol.
138,
1181-1192
|
| 48.
|
Izaurralde, E.,
Kutay, U.,
von Kobbe, C.,
Mattaj, I. W.,
and Gorlich, D.
(1997)
EMBO J.
16,
6535-6547
|
| 49.
|
Ribbeck, K.,
Kutay, U.,
Paraskeva, E.,
and Gorlich, D.
(1999)
Curr. Biol.
9,
47-50
|
| 50.
|
Smith, A.,
Brownawell, A.,
and Macara, I. G.
(1998)
Curr. Biol.
8,
1403-1406
|
| 51.
|
Ohtsubo, M.,
Okazaki, H.,
and Nishimoto, T.
(1989)
J. Cell Biol.
109,
1389-1397
|
| 52.
|
Fontoura, B. M.,
Blobel, G.,
and Matunis, M. J.
(1999)
J. Cell Biol.
144,
1097-1112
|
| 53.
|
Chook, Y. M.,
and Blobel, G.
(1999)
Nature
399,
230-237
|
| 54.
|
Yaseen, N. R.,
and Blobel, G.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
26493-26502
|
| 55.
|
Blobel, G.,
and Potter, V. R.
(1966)
Science
154,
1662-1665
|
| 56.
|
Dwyer, N.,
and Blobel, G.
(1976)
J. Cell Biol.
70,
581-591
|
| 57.
|
Floer, M.,
and Blobel, G.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
5313-5316
|
| 58.
|
Nakielny, S.,
Shaikh, S.,
Burke, B.,
and Dreyfuss, G.
(1999)
EMBO J.
18,
1982-1995
|
| 59.
|
Schwoebel, E. D.,
Talcott, B.,
Cushman, I.,
and Moore, M. S.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
35170-35175
|
| 60.
|
Gorlich, D.,
Pante, N.,
Kutay, U.,
Aebi, U.,
and Bischoff, F. R.
(1996)
EMBO J.
15,
5584-5594
|
| 61.
|
Fabre, E.,
Boelens, W. C.,
Wimmer, C.,
Mattaj, I. W.,
and Hurt, E. C.
(1994)
Cell
78,
275-289
|
| 62.
|
Emtage, J.,
Bucci, M.,
Watkins, J.,
and Wente, S.
(1997)
J. Cell Sci.
110,
911-925
|
| 63.
|
Teixeira, M. T.,
Siniossoglou, S.,
Podtelejnikov, S.,
Benichou, J. C.,
Mann, M.,
Dujon, B.,
Hurt, E.,
and Fabre, E.
(1997)
EMBO J.
16,
5086-5097
|
| 64.
|
Weis, K.,
Dingwall, C.,
and Lamond, A. I.
(1996)
EMBO J.
15,
7120-7128
|
| 65.
|
Delphin, C.,
Guan, T.,
Melchior, F.,
and Gerace, L.
(1997)
Mol. Biol. Cell
8,
2379-2390
|
| 66.
|
Floer, M.,
and Blobel, G.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
16279-16286
|
| 67.
|
Rout, M. P.,
Aitchison, J. D.,
Suprapto, A.,
Hjertaas, K.,
Zhao, Y.,
and Chait, B. T.
(2000)
J. Cell Biol.
148,
635-651
|
| 68.
|
Bischoff, F. R.,
Krebber, H.,
Smirnova, E.,
Dong, W.,
and Ponstingl, H.
(1995)
EMBO J.
14,
705-715
|
| 69.
|
Yaseen, N. R.,
and Blobel, G.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
5516-5521
|
| 70.
|
Nemergut, M. E.,
and Macara, I. G.
(2000)
J. Cell Biol.
149,
835-850
|
| 71.
|
Kose, S.,
Imamoto, N.,
Tachibana, T.,
Shimamoto, T.,
and Yoneda, Y.
(1997)
J. Cell Biol.
139,
841-849
|
| 72.
|
Kutay, U.,
Lipowsky, G.,
Izaurralde, E.,
Bischoff, F. R.,
Schwarzmaier, P.,
Hartmann, E.,
and Gorlich, D.
(1998)
Mol. Cell
1,
359-369
|
| 73.
|
Nakielny, S.,
and Dreyfuss, G.
(1998)
Curr. Biol.
8,
89-95
|
Copyright © 2000 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
N. Satterly, P.-L. Tsai, J. van Deursen, D. R. Nussenzveig, Y. Wang, P. A. Faria, A. Levay, D. E. Levy, and B. M. A. Fontoura
Influenza virus targets the mRNA export machinery and the nuclear pore complex | |