![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 276, Issue 30, 28436-28442, July 27, 2001
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,
§,
, and
**
From the
Department of Biology, ¶ Cancer Center
Flow Cytometry Shared Resource, and
Department of Cell Biology,
School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
Received for publication, March 5, 2001, and in revised form, April 18, 2001
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The apicoplast is a distinctive organelle
associated with apicomplexan parasites, including
Plasmodium sp. (which cause malaria) and Toxoplasma
gondii (the causative agent of toxoplasmosis). This unusual
structure (acquired by the engulfment of an ancestral alga and
retention of the algal plastid) is essential for long-term parasite
survival. Similar to other endosymbiotic organelles (mitochondria, chloroplasts), the apicoplast contains proteins that are encoded in the
nucleus and post-translationally imported. Translocation across the
four membranes surrounding the apicoplast is mediated by an N-terminal
bipartite targeting sequence. Previous studies have described a
recombinant "poison" that blocks plastid segregation during
mitosis, producing parasites that lack an apicoplast and siblings
containing a gigantic, nonsegregating plastid. To learn more about this
remarkable phenomenon, we examined the localization and processing of
the protein produced by this construct. Taking advantage of the ability
to isolate apicoplast segregation mutants, we also demonstrated that
processing of the transit peptide of nuclear-encoded apicoplast
proteins requires plastid-associated activity.
Toxoplasma gondii is an obligate intracellular
parasite, a major cause of congenital birth defects in humans and
livestock (1, 2), and an important opportunistic infection associated with AIDS (3). This single-cell eukaryotic pathogen contains an unusual
organelle that was acquired by horizontal transfer (secondary
endosymbiosis) from a eukaryotic alga (4). The apicoplast has been
identified in many apicomplexan parasites, including Toxoplasma,
Plasmodium, Eimeria, Babesia, Theileria,
etc. (5).
Previous studies have shown that the apicoplast is essential for long
term parasite viability (6-8). When this organelle is eliminated by
either pharmacological or molecular genetic manipulation, parasites are
killed with distinctive "delayed death" kinetics. Plastid-deficient
parasites are capable of normal growth within and escape from the first
host cell, but their replication is inhibited immediately upon invasion
into a new host cell. Although the mechanistic basis of the delayed
death phenotype remains unexplained, these studies demonstrate that the
apicoplast is an essential organelle and therefore a potential target
for drug development (9).
The apicoplast possesses a 35-kilobase pair circular organellar
genome containing rRNA and tRNA genes and 28 open reading frames (10).
All identified genes in the apicoplast genome are predicted to encode
housekeeping proteins (RNA polymerase, ribosomal proteins, etc.).
However, most apicoplast proteins are thought to be encoded in the
nuclear genome, as is well known for other endosymbiotic organelles
(mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc.). These nuclear-encoded apicoplast
proteins must be imported across the four membranes surrounding this
organelle (9, 11). Apicomplexan parasite genome and EST sequence
databases (12, 13) provide a useful resource for identifying
nuclear-encoded genes destined for the apicoplast. Candidate
nuclear-encoded apicoplast proteins include enzymes associated with the
biosynthesis of fatty acids (14, 15) and terpenoids (16). Several of
these proteins have been localized to the apicoplast by immunostaining
and/or fusion with fluorescent protein reporters (14, 16-18).
Pharmacological experiments using inhibitors of type II fatty acid
biosynthesis (cerulenin, triclosan, and thiolactomycin),
1-deoxy-D-xylulose-5-phosphate reductoisomerase
(fosmidomycin), or acetyl-CoA carboxylase (aryloxyphenoxypropionates) also support the presence of these enzymes (14-16, 19, 20), although
formal proof that these drugs target the apicoplast itself is lacking.
To substantiate the association of predicted metabolic pathways with
the apicoplast and to further characterize this organelle, we have
attempted to purify the apicoplast using various cell fractionation methods.
Nuclear-encoded apicoplast proteins are characterized by a bipartite
targeting sequence consisting of a signal peptide at the extreme N
terminus followed by a plastid transit domain (11). Mutational studies
(21, 22) indicate that this bipartite structure is both necessary and
sufficient for targeting proteins into the apicoplast. Targeting
appears to proceed via the secretory pathway with sequential removal of
the signal peptide and the plastid transit peptide (11). Although
removal of the secretory signal sequence (in the endoplasmic reticulum)
is difficult to detect by Western blotting, the processing of the
plastid-targeting domain is easily observed and presumed to occur
within the plastid lumen (22).
We have exploited the ability to target heterologous reporter proteins
into the apicoplast to develop fluorescent and enzymatic markers for
organellar purification. One recombinant fusion protein was found to
disrupt apicoplast segregation (8), yielding plastid-deficient and
"super-apicoplast"-containing parasites by fluorescence-activated cell sorting. These mutants allow the examination of apicoplast protein
synthesis, targeting, and processing in the presence or absence of the organelle.
Parasites and Host Cells--
T. gondii tachyzoites
were maintained by serial passage in human foreskin fibroblast cell
monolayers cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium
(Life Technologies, Inc.) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal
bovine serum at 37 °C in a humidified CO2 incubator as
described previously (23).
Molecular Methods--
Several nuclear-encoded apicoplast
proteins have been shown to contain a bipartite leader sequence
consisting of a secretory signal sequence thought to mediate
translocation across one membrane (into the endoplasmic reticulum)
followed by a plastid transit domain thought to mediate translocation
across the remaining three membranes surrounding the apicoplast (11,
21, 22) (Fig. 1). Two previously validated apicoplast targeting signals
from nuclear-encoded apicoplast proteins were employed in this
study; these signals were derived from the N-terminal domains of the acyl carrier protein (ACP)1
(14) or ferrodoxin NADP-reductase (FNR) (24).
Plasmids ACP-GFP, ACPL-GFP, and ACP-GFP-mROP1 have been
described previously (8, 14). Plasmid FNRL-RFP
(kindly provided by Dr. Boris Striepen) contains 150 amino
acids from the N terminus of ferrodoxin NADP-reductase
(FNRL) fused to a red fluorescent protein marker (DsRed,
CLONTECH). Plasmid ACPL-CAT (kindly
provided by Dr. Robert G. K. Donald) is a fusion between the ACP
leader sequence (ACPL) (14) and the chloramphenicol
acetyltransferase (CAT). 50 µg of plasmid DNA (Qiagen Maxi-preps) was
transfected into 107 freshly lysed-out tachyzoites by
electroporation as described previously (23). In transient assays,
protein expression was typically assayed at 24 h
post-transfection. Stable transformants were selected in the presence
of 20 µM chloramphenicol.
Microscopy--
GFP, RFP, and fluorescein isothiocyanate
fluorescence was detected using a Zeiss Axiovert 35 inverted microscope
equipped with a 100-watt Hg-vapor lamp and fluorescein and rhodamine
filter sets. Confocal microscopy was performed on a Zeiss Laser
Scanning Microscope (LSM510). For immunofluorescence assays, parasites were fixed with 3.7% paraformaldehyde, permeabilized with 0.25% Triton X-100, and blocked with 1% bovine serum albumin in
phosphate-buffered saline (pH 7.4) at room temperature. The expression
of CAT was detected using a polyclonal rabbit antiserum (1:1000) (5 Prime Cell Fractionation--
Several protocols were evaluated for
apicoplast purification. The Stansted cell disrupter (25) was found to
be the most effective, as discussed under "Results"
(cf. Fig. 2). ACPL-CAT parasites were harvested
from five heavily infected 175-cm2 tissue culture flasks
(~2 × 109 tachyzoites) by filtering through 3-µm
pore size polycarbonate filters (Nucleopore) and centrifuged at
1500 × g for 15 min. Parasites were washed twice with
homogenization buffer (250 mM sucrose, 5 mM
triethanolamine-HCl, 1 mM EDTA, pH 7.6), resuspended in 10 ml of the same buffer supplemented with protease inhibitors (0.1 µg/ml each of aprotinin, pepstatin A, and leupeptin and 0.5 µM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride) and DNase I (1 µg/ml), mechanically disrupted in the Stansted biological cell
disrupter at ~2000 p.s.i., and centrifuged at 1500 × g at 4 °C for 15 min to remove unbroken parasites. The
supernatant containing various organelles, vesicles, and other
subcellular structures was centrifuged at 30,000 × g at 4 °C for 30 min onto a 2.2 M sucrose cushion
(buffered with 5 mM triethanolamine-HCl and 1 mM EDTA, pH 7.6). The interface (a crude apicoplast
fraction) was collected, mixed with 2.2 M sucrose to 0.6 ml, and loaded at the bottom of a sucrose step gradient (0.3 ml each of
1.6, 1.5, 1.4, 1.35, 1.3, 1.25, 1.2, and 1.0 M sucrose
buffered with 5 mM triethanolamine-HCl and 1 mM
EDTA, pH 7.6). Ultracentrifugation was carried out in a Beckman L8 55 Ultracentrifuge for 1 h at 112,000 × g using an
SW55 rotor, and 0.2-ml fractions were collected from the top of the gradient.
Sucrose gradient fractions were assayed as follows. The total amount of
protein in each fraction was measured by Bradford assay (Bio-Rad). As
high sucrose concentrations may interfere with colorimetry, fractions
were centrifuged at 200,000 × g for 1 h in a
Beckman TL-100 tabletop Ultracentrifuge to remove the sucrose before
the assay. Protein gel electrophoresis was performed on a 12%
SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis gel. For Western blotting,
proteins were transferred onto nitrocellulose membranes (Schleicher and
Schuell) using standard protocol (26), and antigens were detected using
the ECL system (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech). After exposure to x-ray
film (Eastman Kodak Co.), densitometry was performed using the
ImageQuant software (Molecular Dynamics). CAT assays were performed
using 14[C]chloramphenicol and thin layer chromatography
on Silica Gel G-coated plates (Fisher) essentially as described
previously (23). Quantification was carried out using a Storm
PhosphorImager (Molecular Dynamics) equipped with the ImageQuant
software. Specific activity in each fraction was calculated as the
amount of ACPL-CAT, ROP7, or CAT activity (arbitrary units)
divided by the total protein in each fraction. Enrichment ratios were
defined as the specific activity in each fraction divided by the
specific activity of the whole parasite control.
Membrane Extractions--
For extraction in sodium carbonate
(27), freshly prepared membranes were incubated with 0.2 M
Na2CO3 (pH 11.5) on ice for 45 min followed by
centrifugation at 100,000 × g at 4 °C for 1 h
to pellet membranes and insoluble structures. For extraction in Triton
X-114 (28, 29), a freshly prepared 10% (v/v) stock solution of Triton
X-114 (Sigma) in phosphate-buffered saline was added to membranes to a
final concentration of 2%. Extraction was carried out on ice for
16 h followed by centrifugation at 15,000 g × 4 °C for 10 min in a tabletop microcentrifuge or at 100,000 g × 4 °C for 1 h in a Beckman L8 55 Ultracentrifuge to remove Triton-insoluble material. To examine phase
separation, the supernatant was incubated for 10 min at 37 °C and
centrifuged at 15,000 × g for 10 min at room
temperature, and the resulting extracts were washed several times by
repeating the above procedure. Proteins in the detergent phase were
precipitated for 1 h in acetone at Fluorescence-activated Cell Sorting (FACS)--
FACS was
performed on a Becton Dickinson FACS Vantage SE dual laser flow
cytometer equipped with Coherent Innova 305 argon and Coherent Spectrum
argon-krypton water-cooled lasers. GFP was excited using the primary
argon laser tuned to 488 nm at 200 milliwatts, and GFP fluorescence was
detected using a standard 560SP dichroic mirror along with a 530DF30
band-pass filter in FL1. RFP was excited using the secondary
argon-krypton laser tuned to 568 nm at 150 milliwatts, and RFP
fluorescence was detected using a 710DRLP dichroic mirror along with a
610DF30 band-pass filter in FL5. All filters were purchased from Omega
Optical. Light scatter and fluorescence were collected using
logarithmic amplification with forward scatter light as the
threshold parameter. T. gondii tachyzoites were harvested as
above and resuspended in culture medium to 5 × 106
parasites/ml. Extracellular parasites were sorted using standard high
speed conditions on the FACS Vantage (70-µm nozzle tip, 45-p.s.i. sheath pressure). This resulted in a drop drive frequency of 71,000 drops/s, a drive level of 6.5 volts, and a drop breakoff of 33.4 drops.
At these settings, parasites flow through the cell sorter at a rate of
12,000/s with abort rates typically less than 10%. Pulse Processing
Plus was used to generate a forward scatter (pulse width)
parameter for aggregate detection. Parasites were sorted into standard
12 × 75-mm polystyrene collection tubes containing 0.5 ml of
phosphate-buffered saline (pH 7.4).
Targeting of Heterologous Proteins into the Apicoplast--
We
have previously shown that N-terminal fusion of the bipartite targeting
sequences from various nuclear-encoded apicoplast proteins permits the
targeting of GFP into the apicoplast in stable T. gondii
transgenics (14) and that this marker can be exploited to follow
organellar replication in living parasites (see Ref. 30 and Fig.
1A). To facilitate two-color
fluorescence studies, a red fluorescent protein reporter was also
targeted into the apicoplast, as shown in Fig. 1B. To
provide an enzymatic marker for subcellular fractionation, the CAT
enzyme was targeted to the apicoplast as well (Fig. 1C). All
of these fusion proteins target specifically to the apicoplast, which
is visible as a small dot in the apical juxtanuclear region of each
tachyzoite (4). The four tachyzoites shown in each panel are
the progeny of a single clonal parasite infection; T. gondii
tachyzoites replicate synchronously within the intracellular
parasitophorous vacuole until host cell lysis (producing 2, 4, 8, 16, ... daughters/vacuole).
Subcellular Fractionation of the Apicoplast by Density Gradient
Ultracentrifugation--
Transgenic parasites stably expressing
ACPL-CAT were disrupted by various methods (Dounce
homogenizer, French press, Stansted cell disrupter, or homogenization
with silicon carbide in a mortar and pestle). Cell fractionation was
then carried out through a series of differential and equilibrium
density gradient centrifugation steps as described under
"Experimental Procedures." Fractions were assayed for protein
concentration, CAT activity, and the abundance of particular proteins
by Western blotting with specific antibodies.
The Stansted cell disrupter yielded the cleanest results for several
subcellular organelles including the apicoplast. Results from a
representative experiment are shown in Fig.
2. Although we consistently observed a
high enrichment ratio for rhoptries at ~1.4/1.5 M sucrose
(~38-fold in this experiment; see panels B and
D) and micronemes (data not shown), the apicoplast was
widely distributed across the gradient with no fraction exhibiting
>6-fold enrichment (maximum at the 1.25/1.3 M sucrose
interface; see panels A and C). Similar
distribution of the apicoplast and rhoptries has been observed in many
different experiments using sucrose or Percoll gradients. Electron
microscopic analysis (not shown) suggests that the distinctive
four-membrane architecture that characterizes the apicoplast (4, 9) is
very fragile, making the isolation of intact organelles with a uniform
density very difficult.
Targeting of a Marker Protein to Apicoplast
Membranes--
Frustrated by the apparent heterogeneity in apicoplast
density, we attempted to develop an alternative strategy based on
affinity purification. Such approaches have been successfully applied
to chloroplast purification in plant systems (31). As no apicoplast surface antigen has been identified to date (and the outer membrane of
the apicoplast may be virtually indistinguishable from the endoplasmic
reticulum/Golgi apparatus (11, 32)), we engineered a series of
constructs in which proteins containing a bipartite apicoplast-targeting signal were fused to a transmembrane anchor and
cytoplasmic epitope tag (33). Unfortunately, however, none of these
constructs exhibited efficient targeting to the apicoplast (data not shown).
Interestingly, one construct engineered in the course of these studies
(ACP-GFP-mROP1) was found to target specifically to the apicoplast,
alter its morphology, and block organelle segregation during parasite
mitosis (8). To determine the localization of the ACP-GFP-mROP1 (a
fusion of the ACP targeting signal to GFP and a fragment of the rhoptry
protein ROP1 (34)), stable transgenic parasites expressing
FNRL-RFP within the apicoplast were transiently transfected
with ACP-GFP-mROP1, as shown in Fig. 3.
In untransfected parasites, each tachyzoite in every parasitophorous vacuole exhibits a red apicoplast attributable to the
FNRL-RFP reporter (Fig. 1B). Parasites
expressing the ACP-GFP-mROP1 fusion, however, produce only one
apicoplast per vacuole (Fig. 3A, compare with Fig. 1). This
single apicoplast contains both GFP and RFP, whereas other parasites
within the same vacuole exhibit only weak, punctate GFP fluorescence in
the apical region and very little RFP fluorescence (despite the
continued expression of FNRL-RFP from the stably integrated
transgene; see below). Confocal microscopy demonstrates that the
ACP-GFP-mROP1 labels only the periphery of the apicoplast, whereas
FNRL-RFP labels the organellar lumen (Fig. 3B).
RFP and GFP labeling are mutually exclusive in these parasites, as
shown by the quantitative fluorescence profile, suggesting the
localization of these markers to different compartments within the same
organelle. This observation is consistent with previous immunoelectron
microscopy showing ACP-GFP-mROP1 staining near the periphery of the
apicoplast (8).
Integral membrane proteins and proteins that are tightly associated
with membranes (including glycosylphosphatidylinositol-anchored proteins such as the major T. gondii surface antigen P30)
remain associated with membrane fractions after extraction with either carbonate or Triton X-114 (27, 28). To determine whether the ACP-GFP-mROP1 fusion protein is associated with the complex
four-membrane structure surrounding the apicoplast, we extracted crude
apicoplast fractions with either Na2CO3 or
Triton X-114, as shown in Fig. 4. Both
the processed (~41 kDa) and unprocessed (~46 kDa) forms of ACP-GFP
are properly targeted to the apicoplast (22). The mature (processed)
form was efficiently extracted by carbonate, consistent with the
interpretation that this is a soluble protein (left panel,
lane 3). The unprocessed form was only partially extracted,
perhaps reflecting the association with apicoplast membranes during the
processing event (35). In contrast, whereas the ACP-GFP-mROP1 protein
was partially processed, neither the mature nor the processed forms was
extracted by carbonate treatment (left panel, top
of lane 4). After solubilization in Triton X-114, both the
processed and unprocessed forms of ACP-GFP and ACP-GFP-mROP1 partitioned into the aqueous phase (right panel, lane
6), consistent with the lack of any stable membrane
association.
Protease protection assays were employed to further probe the
subcellular localization of ACP-GFP and ACP-GFP-mROP1 in these parasites. Both the processed and unprocessed forms of the reporters were fully protected from degradation by thermolysin but were fully
susceptible after the addition of SDS, indicating that these molecules
are enclosed within a membrane-bounded compartment (data not shown).
The protection of even the unprocessed form of apicoplast proteins is
consistent with evidence that targeting to the apicoplast occurs only
after proteins have already entered the endoplasmic reticulum/secretory pathway (11, 21, 22). Thus the membrane association
of ACP-GFP-mROP1 is presumed to be attributable to internal membranes
rather than the outermost membrane exposed to the cytoplasm.
Isolation of Apicoplast-deficient and
Super-apicoplast-containing Parasites--
To test the
hypothesis that the processing of nuclear-encoded apicoplast proteins
occurs within the apicoplast itself (as is the case in chloroplasts
(36, 37)), we exploited the apicoplast segregation defect induced by
ACP-GFP-mROP1 to isolate plastid-deficient parasites. We developed a
two-color strategy to improve on the single-color FACS procedure
described previously (8), ensuring high purity FACS sorting.
Transgenic parasites expressing a stable FNRL-RFP reporter
were transiently transfected with the ACP-GFP-mROP1 construct
(cf. Fig. 3A). Extracellular parasites were then
harvested and analyzed by two-color FACS, as shown in Fig.
5C. Approximately 62% of the parasites in this experiment exhibited RFP fluorescence comparable with
the parental FNRL-RFP line (Fig. 5B) but no GFP
fluorescence (upper left quadrant in Fig. 5C).
These parasites failed to take up or express the ACP-GFP-mROP1 poison
construct. Approximately 4% of the sample exhibited both GFP and RFP
fluorescence (upper right). These "superbright"
parasites were successfully transfected with the poison construct and
retained the apicoplast during parasite division (cf. Fig.
3A), accumulating both ACP-GFP-mROP1 and
FNRL-RFP in the large, nonsegregating organelle (8).
Approximately 34% of parasites exhibited RFP expression levels
below background levels (lower half of Fig.
5C; compare with wild-type parasites shown in Fig.
5A). These are parasites that failed to retain an apicoplast
during mitosis (black parasites in Fig. 3A).
The following peaks were sorted for further analysis. Population
R1 consists of untransfected FNRL-RFP
transgenics (red, not green); population R2 consists of
apicoplast segregation mutants containing a super-apicoplast (red and
green); and population R3 consists of apicoplast
segregation mutants that lost the apicoplast. Because a significant
number of parasites in the stable FNRL-RFP line exhibit
weak fluorescence (~18% of the parasites in Fig. 5B fall
within the lower left quadrant), apicoplast-deficient parasites were isolated based on both positive staining for GFP and
negative staining for RFP (green, not red). The purity of these
populations was assessed by inoculation into fresh host cell
monolayers, as shown in Table I.
Plastid-deficient parasites could be isolated with a purity of >98%;
"superplastid"-containing parasites were isolated with a purity of
~77% (although this may underestimate the true value because of the
reversion to wild type; see below). Gating conditions used to isolate
populations R2 and R3 were established to
maximize purity without particular concern for yield; each of these
subpopulations consisted of ~1% of the total population, permitting
the isolation of ~5 × 105 parasite tachyzoites
(~50 µg of wet weight) in a 1-h sort on a FACS Vantage
instrument.
Processing of Nuclear-encoded Apicoplast Proteins Requires Presence
of the Apicoplast Organelle--
Proteins isolated from FACS-sorted
parasites containing or lacking the apicoplast (Fig. 5 and Table I)
were separated by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and analyzed
by Western blotting to examine the processing pattern of the
nuclear-encoded apicoplast markers FNRL-RFP and
ACP-GFP-mROP1 (Fig. 6). Two bands of
~42 and ~31 kDa were labeled by anti-RFP antibodies in
FNRL-RFP transgenics (lane 2), corresponding to
the unprocessed and mature forms of this protein, respectively. (Note
that the larger size difference between this doublet and the bands
detected in Fig. 4 is attributable to the larger size of the FNR leader
domain: ~11 versus 5 kDa for ACP.) As expected, these same
two bands were observed in population R1 (lane
3). The super-apicoplast-containing parasites (R2)
exhibit both the processed and unprocessed forms of ACP-GFP-mROP1
(labeled by anti-GFP antibodies), in addition to both forms of
FNRL-RFP (lane 4). As noted above, this is
consistent with the microscopic observation of both GFP and RFP in
these giant apicoplasts (Fig. 3B). In contrast, whereas
parasites lacking an apicoplast (R3 in Fig. 5 and Table I)
express near normal levels of the nuclear-encoded apicoplast proteins
FNRL-RFP and ACP-GFP-mROP1 (note that four to five times
more parasites were loaded in lanes 1-2 than in lanes
3-5), no processing was observed, indicating that the processing
of nuclear-encoded apicoplast proteins probably occurs within the
apicoplast itself.
Apicoplast Segregation Resumes As Transient ACP-GFP-mROP1
Expression Declines--
The disruption of apicoplast segregation
leads to plastid-deficient and super-apicoplast-containing parasites as
described above. Although the transient expression of recombinant
transgenes is lost over the course of 2-3 days in culture (38),
plastid-deficient parasites are unable to recover, presumably because
there is no way to regain an apicoplast once this organelle (and its
genome) have been lost. Long term culture of
super-apicoplast-containing parasites eventually leads to the outgrowth
of apparently wild-type parasites, however. Microscopic observation
suggests that these represent revertants, although it is also possible
that a few individual wild-type parasites were inadvertently isolated
along with the mutants. Prolonged cultivation of host cells infected with super-apicoplast-containing parasites reveals vacuoles containing more than one apicoplast (Fig. 7). These
vacuoles typically contain one parasite with a single giant apicoplast
and one or more parasites harboring a smaller, normal-sized apicoplast.
Although it appears to be impossible for a giant, malformed apicoplast
to resolve to normal morphology (even after ACP-GFP-mROP1 expression
has been lost because of dilution and/or degradation of the plasmid over time), small fragments of the apicoplast may break off during parasite division, giving rise to an effectively normal parasite.
The discovery of the apicoplast, a plastid organelle that is
essential for apicomplexan parasite viability, offers a potential target for chemotherapy provided that we can identify the biological function(s) of this organelle that make it essential for parasite survival (9). Unfortunately, attempts to purify the apicoplast by
density gradient fractionation have failed to yield >6-fold enrichment
despite the excellent purification of other subcellular organelles in
the same experiments (Fig. 2). The apparent heterogeneity in apicoplast
density may be attributable to several factors. Electron
microscopic observations indicate that the apicoplast is surrounded by
four delimiting membranes (4, 9), supporting the proposed secondary
endosymbiotic origin of the organelle (4). It is possible that the
procedures required to rupture the complex parasite pellicle (39)
disrupt a variable number of plastid membranes, leaving behind free
apicoplast remnants of diverse density. The problem of apicoplast
fragmentation may be further exacerbated by the complex morphology
exhibited by this organelle during its progress through the cell cycle
(22, 30). The apicoplast is closely associated with other cell
components, particularly the cytoskeletal mitotic apparatus (30), and
these associations may inhibit the purification of the apicoplast as a
distinct organelle.
Attempts to target a reporter to the apicoplast surface for affinity
purification resulted in the development of a fusion construct
expressing the bipartite apicoplast targeting domain of ACP, fused to
GFP and a fragment of rhoptry protein ROP1. As described previously,
the protein product of ACP-GFP-mROP1 targets specifically to the
apicoplast, disrupts its morphology, and inhibits apicoplast
segregation during parasite division (8). This fusion protein, which
lacks a transmembrane domain, has nevertheless been shown to associate
with the apicoplast membranes by high-resolution confocal microscopy
(Fig. 3), immunoelectron microscopy (8), and carbonate extraction (Fig.
4). Membrane association may be mediated by the mROP1 domain because
this protein in its native form associates with the parasitophorous
vacuole membrane after secretion from the rhoptries (40). Neither ROP1
nor ACP-GFP-mROP1 contains an obvious transmembrane domain, which is
consistent with the insolubility of these proteins in Triton X-114
(Fig. 4). Like ROP1 (41), ACP-GFP-mROP1 exhibits aberrant mobility at
~97 kDa on SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis gels (Figs. 4 and
6; the predicted molecular size of ACP-GFP-mROP1 is ~68 kDa).
The precise mechanism of ACP-GFP-mROP1 association with membranes
remains unresolved, as is the case for ROP1 itself (41). ROP1 has been
reported to exhibit a low level similarity to rat salivary gland
proteins known to form protein complexes, and therefore ACP-GFP-mROP1
may form Triton- and carbonate-insoluble protein aggregates that are
trapped within the internal membranes of the apicoplast. Preliminary
studies on Triton-114-extracted parasites suggest that ACP-GFP-mROP1
forms a high molecular weigh aggregate that pellets rapidly during
ultracentrifugation (data not shown).
How the ACP-GFP-mROP1 poison construct mediates the surprising
apicoplast segregation defect is likewise unknown. Constructs in which
the ROP1 domain of ACP-GFP-mROP1 is replaced with a conventional single-span Despite the dramatic changes in apicoplast morphology and inhibition of
organelle segregation observed in super-apicoplast-containing parasites, apicoplast DNA replication (8) and protein import/processing (Fig. 6, lane 4) appear to proceed normally. These parasites
are also capable of essentially normal replication and cell-cell spread through multiple infectious cycles (8). Presumably, the growth of
apicoplasts of ever larger size would ultimately kill even those
parasites that retain the organelle, which probably accounts for the
inability to isolate even very slow-growing transgenic parasites that
stably express ACP-GFP-mROP1. The prolonged replication of parasites
harboring a super-apicoplast ultimately results in the outgrowth of
normal parasites, however. The simplest explanation for this
observation is that giant, malformed apicoplasts occasionally fragment
during cell division (Fig. 7), producing small, effectively wild-type
apicoplast organelles containing at least one copy of the apicoplast
genome. As the expression of the ACP-GFP-mROP1 poison construct
declines, apicoplast fragments are able to segregate normally during
cell division. These observations confirm that ACP-GFP-mROP1 expression
causes only a transient block in apicoplast segregation without
imposing other detrimental effects on the biological functions of this organelle.
Apicoplast-deficient parasites provide the opportunity to explore the
targeting of nuclear-encoded plastid proteins in T. gondii.
Previous studies have shown that the extreme N terminus of these
proteins is necessary for apicoplast targeting and that on its own,
this terminus can function as a secretory signal sequence (21, 22).
Neither FNRL-RFP nor ACP-GFP-mROP1 was secreted in
apicoplast-deficient parasites nor were these reporters retained within
the endoplasmic reticulum (45). GFP fluorescence was detected in
vesicles in the apical region of parasites lacking an apicoplast,
however, suggesting that trafficking to the apicoplast may involve
vesicular transport (Fig. 3A). The exact nature of these
vesicles remains to be determined, but preliminary experiments suggest
that they do not co-localize with micronemes or dense granules (data
not shown). FNRL-RFP was hardly detectable in parasites lacking an apicoplast despite nearly normal levels of steady state protein (Fig. 6, lane 5). The inability to observe red
fluorescence may be attributable to the pH sensitivity or slow
maturation rate of RFP relative to GFP and its derivatives (46).
Apicoplast-deficient parasites also provide the opportunity to explore
the processing of nuclear-encoded plastid proteins. Transgenic
reporters engineered to contain an N-terminal apicoplast targeting
domain are processed as effectively as native nuclear-encoded apicoplast proteins (14, 21, 22). It has been proposed that the signal
peptide may be removed within the endoplasmic reticulum, whereas the
processing of the transit peptide occurs in the plastid to produce
mature protein (22). Studies on plastid-deficient mutants (Fig. 6,
lane 5) demonstrate that the apicoplast is required for the
processing of the transit peptide. A probable nuclear-encoded apicoplast peptidase has recently been identified in the
Plasmodium falciparum genome data base (13).
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
3 Prime, Inc., Boulder, CO) followed by fluorescein
isothiocyanate-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (1:160; Sigma).
20 °C and solubilized in
SDS loading buffer for polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis in parallel
with the aqueous phase samples.
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (20K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Targeting of fluorescent and enzymatic
reporters to the apicoplast. Fusion of the nuclear-encoded
apicoplast proteins ACP (14) or FNR (24) or of the N-terminal bipartite
domain of these proteins (designated by the subscript L) is
sufficient to target heterologous reporters to the apicoplast in stable
transgenic T. gondii parasites. A, GFP reporter
(visualized by direct fluorescence); B, RFP (direct
fluorescence); C, CAT (immunofluorescence). Bar,
5 µm.

View larger version (35K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Density gradient fractionation of T. gondii organelles. Parasite tachyzoites stably
expressing a transgenic ACPL-CAT reporter were disrupted
and separated on a sucrose density gradient as described under
"Experimental Procedures." Fractions were assayed for
ACPL-CAT (A), rhoptry protein ROP7
(B), and microneme protein MIC3 (not shown) by Western
blotting and for enzymatic activity of CAT (C). D,
apicoplast and rhoptry enrichment relative to total protein levels
(determined by Bradford assay). Two major bands were observed for
ACPL-CAT, representing partially and completely processed
forms of this protein (see "Results" and Ref. 14).
ACPL-CAT purification was calculated based on the mature
(smaller) protein only to avoid the possible consideration of
improperly targeted protein (see "Experimental Procedures"). In
this representative experiment, rhoptries were enriched up to 38-fold
in fractions 9 and 10 (1.5/1.6 M sucrose interface), but
apicoplasts were widely spread across the density gradient, never
showing >6-fold enrichment (maximum at the 1.25/1.3 M
interface).

View larger version (27K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
ACP-GFP-mROP1 and FNRL-RFP label
different compartments within the apicoplast. A,
transgenic parasites stably expressing FNRL-RFP in the
apicoplast were transfected with the ACP-GFP-mROP1 poison construct,
yielding organellar segregation mutants (8) that typically exhibit only
a single apicoplast per vacuole (bar, 5 µm). The
apicoplast in these parasites contains both the FNRL-RFP
marker (presumed to label the organellar lumen) and the ACP-GFP-mROP1
marker. B, confocal microscopy (bar, 1 µm)
reveals a circular GFP labeling pattern surrounding the apicoplast
lumen labeled by RFP; quantitative analysis is shown at the lower
right. As predicted by the bipartite signal responsible for
apicoplast targeting (11, 21, 22), protease protection
experiments indicate that ACP-GFP-mROP1 is associated with
internal membranes rather than the outermost membrane exposed to the
cytosol (see "Results").

View larger version (58K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
ACP-GFP-mROP1 associates with the
apicoplast membrane but not as an integral membrane protein.
ACP-GFP transgenic parasites transiently expressing the poison
construct were harvested ~2 days post-transfection, disrupted by
sonication, extracted in either sodium bicarbonate (left
panel) or Triton X-114 (right panel), and detected on a
Western blot using anti-GFP. Consistent with previous observations
(14), both recombinant proteins were present as a doublet, including
partially and fully processed forms (upper and lower
bands, respectively). In unextracted parasite lysates, all GFP
proteins were found in the pellet (lane 2) rather than the
solute fraction (lane 1), confirming organelle association.
The mature form of ACP-GFP (lowest band) was fully
solubilized by Na2CO3 extraction (lane
3), whereas the unprocessed form of ACP-GFP was only partially
extracted (lane 4), suggesting association with the
apicoplast membranes. In contrast, both processed and unprocessed
ACP-GFP-mROP1 protein remained associated with the membrane fraction
(lane 4, top). A significant fraction of
unprocessed ACP-GFP and both ACP-GFP-mROP1 bands remained in the pellet
fraction even after overnight solubilization in Triton X-114
(lane 5), similar to the carbonate extraction profile
(lane 4). However, all of the solubilized recombinant
proteins partitioned into the aqueous phase (lane 6) rather
than the detergent phase (lane 7), indicating that these
proteins are not integral membrane proteins. insol,
insoluble; aq, aqueous; det, detergent;
P, pellet; S, solute fractions.

View larger version (21K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
Two-color separation of parental,
plastid-deficient, and giant apicoplast-containing parasites.
Stable FNRL-RFP transgenic parasites (B) were
transfected with the poison construct and examined by FACS
(C) as described under "Experimental
Procedures." The expression of ACP-GFP-mROP1 produces a subpopulation
of parasites that are unusually bright in both red and
green channels (upper right-hand quadrant of
panel C) because of the acquisition of a giant apicoplast.
In addition, a larger population of parasites (lower half of
panel C) exhibit background RFP fluorescence levels
comparable with wild-type RH parasites (panel A); some of
these parasites exhibit detectable GFP fluorescence
(lower right-hand quadrant of panel C).
Gates R1, R2, and R3 were sorted
for the isolation of parental, giant-apicoplast-containing, and
apicoplast-deficient populations, as shown in Table I and Fig. 6. See
"Results" for further discussion.
Isolation of plastid-containing and plastid-deficient tachyzoites by
two-color FACS

View larger version (59K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 6.
Processing of transit peptides is
apicoplast-dependent. Parasites obtained by RFP/GFP
two-color FACS (Fig. 5 and Table I) were analyzed by Western blotting
using anti-RFP to detect FNRL-RFP (bottom) and
anti-GFP to detect ACP-GFP-mROP1 (top). Lane 1 (106 cells) shows the results obtained with wild-type RH
strain parasites, demonstrating the lack of reactivity with either
antibody. Unsorted parental parasites (lane 2;
106 cells) and transfected parasites that failed to take up
the ACP-GFP-mROP1 transgene (lane 3; 2.8 × 105 cells) show both mature and unprocessed
FNRL-RFP protein but no GFP. Parasites containing the
large, nonsegregating apicoplast (cf. Fig. 3) express both
the unprocessed and mature forms of both FNRL-RFP and
ACP-GFP-mROP1 (lane 4; 2.8 × 105 cells).
The greater size difference between the processed and unprocessed forms
of FNRL-RFP as compared with ACP-GFP-mROP1 is attributable
to the larger size of the bipartite apicoplast targeting domain of FNR
(24). Apicoplast-deficient parasites express both FNRL-RFP
and ACP-GFP-mROP1 but only in their unprocessed form (lane
5; 2 × 105 cells). wt, wild
type.

View larger version (36K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 7.
Reversion of giant plastid-containing
parasites to wild-type after prolonged cultivation. FACS-sorted
parasites containing a giant apicoplast (population R2 in
Fig. 5 and Table I) are capable of infecting a new host cell and
continue to mis-segregate the apicoplast (8). Prolonged cultivation
reveals some vacuoles containing parasites with small, apparently
"normal" apicoplasts, which are capable of indefinite replication.
These parasites probably derive from the fragmentation of giant
plastids during replication. Consistent with this
interpretation, normal parasites within these vacuoles are usually
found in clusters. See "Results" for further discussion.
Bar, 5 µm.
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-helical transmembrane domain derived from human CD46
(42, 43) or with a glycosylphosphatidylinositol anchor derived
from the major parasite surface antigen P30 (44) fail to efficiently
target the apicoplast and do not produce the plastid mis-segregation
phenotype (data not shown). Regardless of the mechanism responsible for
this phenotype, however, the ability to generate plastid-deficient and
superplastid-containing parasites (8) and to efficiently isolate these
mutants (Fig. 5 and Table I) provides valuable reagents for studies on
apicoplast function.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
We thank Richard Schretzenmair and Bill Murphy for help with the FACS analysis, Dr. Robert G. K. Donald for providing the construct, and Drs. Phil Rea and Michael K. Shaw for helpful advice.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health.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.
§ Present address: Center for Tropical and Emerging Global Diseases and Dept. of Cellular Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.
** A Burroughs Wellcome Scholar in Molecular Parasitology. To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Biology, 305 Goddard Laboratories, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018; Tel.: 215-898-2118; Fax: 215-898-8780; E-mail: droos@ mail.sas.upenn.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, April 23, 2001, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M102000200
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviations used are: ACP, acyl carrier protein; FNR, ferrodoxin NADP-reductase; GFP, green fluorescent protein; RFP, red fluorescent protein; FACS, fluorescence-activated cell sorting; CAT, chloramphenicol acetyltransferase.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Dubey, J. P., and Welcome, F. L. (1988) J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 193, 697-700 |
| 2. | Roizen, N., Swisher, C. N., Stein, M. A., Hopkins, J., Boyer, K. M., Holfels, E., Mets, M. B., Stein, L., Patel, D., and Meier, P. (1995) Pediatrics 95, 11-20 |
| 3. | Luft, B. J., Hafner, R., Korzun, A. H., Leport, C., Antoniskis, D., Bosler, E. M., Bourland, D. D., III, Uttamchandani, R., Fuhrer, J., and Jacobson, J. (1993) N. Engl. J. Med. 329, 995-1000 |
| 4. | Köhler, S., Delwiche, C. F., Denny, P. W., Tilney, L. G., Webster, P., Wilson, R. J., Palmer, J. D., and Roos, D. S. (1997) Science 275, 1485-1489 |
| 5. | Wilson, R. J., and Williamson, D. H. (1997) Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 61, 1-16 |
| 6. | Fichera, M. E., and Roos, D. S. (1997) Nature 390, 407-409 |
| 7. | Sullivan, M., Li, J., Kumar, S., Rogers, M. J., and McCutchan, T. F. (2000) Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 109, 17-23 |
| 8. | He, C. Y., Shaw, M. K., Pletcher, C. H., Striepen, B., Tilney, L. G., and Roos, D. S. (2001) EMBO J. 20, 330-339 |
| 9. | McFadden, G. I., and Roos, D. S. (1999) Trends Microbiol. 7, 328-333 |
| 10. | Wilson, R. J., Denny, P. W., Preiser, P. R., Rangachari, K., Roberts, K., Roy, A., Whyte, A., Strath, M., Moore, D. J., Moore, P. W., and Williamson, D. H. (1996) J. Mol. Biol. 261, 155-172 |
| 11. | Roos, D. S., Crawford, M. J., Donald, R. G. K., Kissinger, J. C., Klimczak, L. J., and Striepen, B. (1999) Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2, 426-432 |
| 12. | Ajioka, J. W. (1998) Int. J. Parasitol. 28, 1025-1031 |
| 13. | The Plasmodium Genome Consortium. (2001) Nucleic Acids Res. 29, 66-69 |
| 14. | Waller, R. F., Keeling, P. J., Donald, R. G. K., Striepen, B., Handman, E., Lang-Unnasch, N., Cowman, A. F., Besra, G. S., Roos, D. S., and McFadden, G. I. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 12352-12357 |
| 15. | Zuther, E., Johnson, J. J., Haselkorn, R., McLeod, R., and Gornicki, P. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 13387-13392 |
| 16. | Jomaa, H., Wiesner, J., Sanderbrand, S., Altincicek, B., Weidemeyer, C., Hintz, M., Turbachova, I., Eberl, M., Zeidler, J., Lichtenthaler, H. K., Soldati, D., and Beck, E. (1999) Science 285, 1573-1576 |
| 17. | Striepen, B., He, C. Y., Matrajt, M., Soldati, D., and Roos, D. S. (1998) Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 92, 325-338 |
| 18. | Jelenska, J., Crawford, M. J., Harb, O. S., Zuther, E., Haselkorn, R., Roos, D. S., and Gornicki, P. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 2723-2728 |
| 19. | Zhu, G., Marchewka, M. J., Woods, K. M., Upton, S. J., and Keithly, J. S. (2000) Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 105, 253-260 |
| 20. | Surolia, N., and Surolia, A. (2001) Nat. Med. 7, 167-173 |
| 21. | DeRocher, A., Hagen, C. B., Froehlich, J. E., Feagin, J. E., and Parsons, M. (2000) J. Cell Sci. 113, 3969-3977 |
| 22. | Waller, R. F., Reed, M. B., Cowman, A. F., and McFadden, G. I. (2000) EMBO J. 19, 1794-1802 |
| 23. | Roos, D. S., Donald, R. G. K., Morrissette, N. S., and Moulton, A. L. C. (1994) Methods Cell Biol. 45, 27-63 |
| 24. | Vollmer, M., Thomsen, N., Wiek, S., and Seeber, F. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 5483-5490 |
| 25. | Kelemen, M. V., and Sharpe, J. E. (1979) J. Cell Sci. 35, 431-441 |
| 26. | Maniatis, T., Sambrook, J., and Fritsch, E. F. (1989) Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual , 2nd Ed. , pp. 18:64-66, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY |
| 27. | Fujiki, Y., Hubbard, A. L., Fowler, S., and Lazarow, P. B. (1982) J. Cell Biol. 93, 97-102 |
| 28. | Bordier, C. (1981) J. Biol. Chem. 256, 1604-1607 |
| 29. | Brusca, J. S., and Radolf, J. D. (1994) Methods Enzymol. 228, 182-193 |
| 30. | Striepen, B., Crawford, M. J., Shaw, M. K., Tilney, L. G., Seeber, F., and Roos, D. S. (2000) J. Cell Biol. 151, 1423-1434 |
| 31. | Kausch, A. P., Owen, T. P., Jr., Narayanswami, S., and Bruce, B. D. (1999) BioTechniques 26, 336-343 |
| 32. | Schwartzbach, S. D., Osafune, T., and Loffelhardt, W. (1998) Plant Mol. Biol. 38, 247-263 |
| 33. | Sulli, C., Fang, Z., Muchhal, U., and Schwartzbach, S. D. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 457-463 |
| 34. | Soldati, D., Lassen, A., Dubremetz, J. F., and Boothroyd, J. C. (1998) Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 96, 37-48 |
| 35. | Sulli, C., and Schwartzbach, S. D. (1996) Plant Cell 8, 43-53 |
| 36. | VanderVere, P. S., Bennett, T. M., Oblong, J. E., and Lamppa, G. K. (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92, 7177-7181 |
| 37. | Richter, S., and Lamppa, G. K. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 7463-7468 |
| 38. | Soldati, D., and Boothroyd, J. C. (1993) Science 260, 349-352 |
| 39. | Morrissette, N. S., Murray, J. M., and Roos, D. S. (1997) J. Cell Sci. 110, 35-42 |
| 40. | Saffer, L. D., Mercereau-Puijalon, O., Dubremetz, J. F., and Schwartzman, J. D. (1992) J. Protozool. 39, 526-530 |
| 41. | Ossorio, P. N., Schwartzman, J. D., and Boothroyd, J. C. (1992) Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 50, 1-15 |
| 42. | Lublin, D. M., Liszewski, M. K., Post, T. W., Arce, M. A., Le Beau, M. M., Rebentisch, M. B., Lemons, L. S., Seya, T., and Atkinson, J. P. (1988) J. Exp. Med. 168, 181-194 |
| 43. | Seeber, F., Dubremetz, J. F., and Boothroyd, J. C. (1998) J. Cell Sci. 111, 23-29 |
| 44. | Nagel, S. D., and Boothroyd, J. C. (1989) J. Biol. Chem. 264, 5569-5574 |
| 45. | Hager, K. M., Striepen, B., Tilney, L. G., and Roos, D. S. (1999) J. Cell Sci. 112, 2631-2638 |
| 46. | Baird, G. S., Zacharias, D. A., and Tsien, R. Y. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 11984-11989 |
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. Nishi, K. Hu, J. M. Murray, and D. S. Roos Organellar dynamics during the cell cycle of Toxoplasma gondii J. Cell Sci., May 1, 2008; 121(9): 1559 - 1568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Parsons, A. Karnataki, J. E. Feagin, and A. DeRocher Protein Trafficking to the Apicoplast: Deciphering the Apicomplexan Solution to Secondary Endosymbiosis Eukaryot. Cell, July 1, 2007; 6(7): 1081 - 1088. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Kimata-Ariga, G. Kurisu, M. Kusunoki, S. Aoki, D. Sato, T. Kobayashi, K. Kita, T. Horii, and T. Hase Cloning and Characterization of Ferredoxin and Ferredoxin-NADP+ Reductase from Human Malaria Parasite J. Biochem., March 1, 2007; 141(3): 421 - 428. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. L. Pfluger, H. V. Goodson, J. M. Moran, C. J. Ruggiero, X. Ye, K. M. Emmons, and K. M. Hager Receptor for Retrograde Transport in the Apicomplexan Parasite Toxoplasma gondii Eukaryot. Cell, February 1, 2005; 4(2): 432 - 442. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
O. S. Harb, B. Chatterjee, M. J. Fraunholz, M. J. Crawford, M. Nishi, and D. S. Roos Multiple Functionally Redundant Signals Mediate Targeting to the Apicoplast in the Apicomplexan Parasite Toxoplasma gondii Eukaryot. Cell, June 1, 2004; 3(3): 663 - 674. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Dhanasekaran, N. R. Chandra, B. K. Chandrasekhar Sagar, P. N. Rangarajan, and G. Padmanaban {delta}-Aminolevulinic Acid Dehydratase from Plasmodium falciparum: INDIGENOUS VERSUS IMPORTED J. Biol. Chem., February 20, 2004; 279(8): 6934 - 6942. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Pandini, G. Caprini, N. Thomsen, A. Aliverti, F. Seeber, and G. Zanetti Ferredoxin-NADP+ Reductase and Ferredoxin of the Protozoan Parasite Toxoplasma gondii Interact Productively in Vitro and in Vivo J. Biol. Chem., December 6, 2002; 277(50): 48463 - 48471. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Cheresh, T. Harrison, H. Fujioka, and K. Haldar Targeting the Malarial Plastid via the Parasitophorous Vacuole J. Biol. Chem., May 3, 2002; 277(18): 16265 - 16277. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||