![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 26, 23702-23708, June 28, 2002
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the Institute of Experimental Cardiology, Cardiology Research
Center, 3rd Cherepkovskaya Street 15A, 121552 Moscow, Russia
Received for publication, December 4, 2001, and in revised form, March 20, 2002
The Sup35 (eRF3) translation termination factor
of Saccharomyces cerevisiae can undergo a prion-like
conformational conversion, thus resulting in the
[PSI+] nonsense-suppressor determinant.
In vivo this process depends critically on the chaperone
Hsp104, whose lack or overexpression can cure
[PSI+]. The use of artificial prion
[PSI+PS] based on a hybrid
Sup35PS with prion domain from the yeast Pichia methanolica
allowed us to uncover three more chaperones, Ssb1, Ssa1, and
Ydj1, whose overexpression can cure prion determinants. Here, we
used the [PSI+PS] to search a
multicopy yeast genomic library for novel factors able to cure prions.
It was found that overexpression of the Hsp40 family chaperones Sis1
and Ynl077w, chaperone Sti1, transcriptional factors Sfl1 and Ssn8, and
acidic ribosomal protein Rpp0 can interfere with propagation and
manifestation of [PSI+PS] in a
prion strain-specific manner. Some of these factors also affected the
manifestation and propagation of conventional
[PSI+]. Excess of Sfl1, Ssn8, and Rpp0
influenced at least one of the tested chaperone-specific promoters,
SSA4, HSP104, and model promoters, with either
the heat shock or stress response elements. Thus, the induction of
chaperone expression by these proteins could explain their prion-curing effects.
There are several proteins in the yeast Saccharomyces
cerevisiae, which, similar to mammalian prions, can undergo
autocatalytic conformational rearrangement. This process can last
stably for many cellular generations, resulting in some cases in
heritable phenotypes (1). The most studied of the yeast prion proteins is the translation termination factor Sup35 (eRF3), which is
related to the [PSI+] determinant. The prion
state of Sup35 is characterized by its aggregation and partial
inactivation, which causes the nonsense-suppressor [PSI+] phenotype (2, 3). Different
[PSI+] isolates ("strains") may
vary in the efficiency of suppression, which presumably reflects
different structures of Sup35 aggregates. The
[PSI+] strains with strong suppression
("strong") are highly stable, the strains with weak suppression
("weak") show decreased mitotic stability (4, 5).
Studies of the yeast prions confirmed that they reproduce the basic
properties of their mammalian prototype and also show profound
similarities to another related phenomenon, amyloids. In particular,
purified Sup35 formed amyloid fibers in vitro (6). Therefore, Sup35 could be used as a convenient model for studying the
basic features of both the prion and amyloid phenomena, and it is
likely that the cellular factors interfering with the propagation of
yeast prions are similar to those that can interfere with the prion or
amyloid formation in animals.
Although in vitro Sup35 alone is sufficient for its
conformational rearrangement, in vivo some cellular proteins
can participate in this process and modulate its efficiency. The most
important of them is the Hsp104 chaperone, which is strictly required
for the [PSI+] propagation, although its
excess interferes with [PSI+] (7). The
chaperones of the Hsp70 family showed weaker effects; the
overexpression of Ssb1 cured weak
[PSI+] strains (8, 9), whereas overproduction
of Ssa1 interfered with the [PSI+] curing by
excess Hsp104 (10). Mutational alterations of Hsp104 and Ssa1 could
also cause [PSI+] elimination (7, 11).
Construction of heterologous [PSI+]
([PSI+PS]) provided a sensitive
instrument for identification of novel factors involved in the prion
propagation. [PSI+PS] is based on
a hybrid Sup35, in which the native prion domain was replaced with its
analog from the yeast Pichia methanolica (12). Compared with
[PSI+],
[PSI+PS] showed increased
sensitivity to overexpression of the Hsp70 chaperones Ssa1 and Ssb1 and
the Hsp40 chaperone Ydj1 but decreased sensitivity to the excess Hsp104
(9). The [PSI+PS] curing by
chaperones showed remarkable prion strain specificity. The chaperones
ranked differently by their curing efficiency for each prion strain.
This finding supports the existence of different prion structures
corresponding to prion strains and differential sensitivity of these
structures to curing mechanisms associated with different chaperones.
Thus, the sets of chaperones able to cure a given prion may differ for
different prions and prion strains. [URE3] prion was cured
by overproduced Ydj1 but was insensitive to excess Hsp104 (13). Recent
studies of [RNQ+] showed that it depends on
another chaperone of the Hsp40 family, Sis1, which has not been found
among the factors curing [PSI+] (14). Deletion
of the inessential glycine- and phenylalanine-rich region of Sis1
abolished propagation of this prion. It should be noted that all
mentioned chaperones are considered to be related functionally. Hsp70
and Hsp40 represent eukaryotic homologues of the bacterial chaperone
system DnaK-DnaJ, and Ydj1 and Sis1 are presumed to be partners for
Ssa1 (15). In vitro, Ssa1 and Ydj1 cooperated with Hsp104 to
reactivate the aggregates of heat-denatured luciferase, with each of
the chaperones being essential for this process (16).
To find additional factors that can influence the prion propagation in
yeast and presumably in other organisms we decided to use the potential
of the [PSI+PS] system to perform
a systematic screen for the genes that cure
[PSI+PS] when overexpressed. The
search revealed genes coding for two chaperones of the Hsp40 family,
Sis1 and previously uncharacterized Ynl077w, Sti1 chaperone,
transcriptional factors Sfl1 and Ssn8, and acidic ribosomal protein Rpp0.
Yeast Strains and Genetic Methods--
The following yeast
strains were used: 5V-H19 (MATa ade2-1 SUQ5 ura3-52
leu2-3,112 can1-100 [psi Plasmids--
Digestion of plasmid and yeast chromosomal DNA by
restriction enzymes, electrophoresis of DNA fragments, and cloning in
Escherichia coli were performed as described (19). Yeast
genomic libraries based on the multicopy URA3 vectors
YEplac195 and pRS426 were used (20, 21). From the library plasmids
isolated in the screen, the following genomic fragments containing
single open reading frames responsible for the prion-curing effects
were cloned into the YEplac195 vector (22): for SIS1, the
3.4-kb KpnI-BamHI fragment; for
YNL077w, 3.2-kb EcoRI-BglII; for
STI1, 2.6-kb AvrII-NsiI; for
SFL1, 3.7-kb KpnI-Eco72I; for
SSN8, 2.6-kb Eco72I-PstI; and for
RPP0, the 2.2-kb XmaIII fragment.
Centromeric YCp111-SSA4pro-lacZ plasmid was obtained in two steps. The
SSA4 promoter was amplified by PCR with
oligonucleotides AGGTCAATCCGGTAGATGTG and GGCGTCGTTCTATTACCTTG
and cloned into the SmaI site of YIp366 (23)
immediately upstream of the lacZ gene. Then, the 4.2-kb
BsrGI fragment of this plasmid containing the
SSA4 promoter-lacZ fusion was inserted into the
Acc65I site of YCplac111 (22). Integrative SUP35
promoter-lacZ fusion construct was made by cloning the
1.2-kb PvuII-PstI fragment of pEMBLyex-SUP35 (24)
into the SmaI and PstI sites of YIp366. For
genomic integration, this plasmid was cut with SnaBI. The
pUKC1600 plasmid containing the lacZ gene under the control
of HSP104 promoter (25) was a kind gift of F. Ness. The
4.5-kb NruI-HindIII fragment of pUKC1600 containing the HSP104-lacZ construct was inserted
into the EheI- and HindIII-digested vector
YCplac111 to generate the YCp111-HSP104-lacZ plasmid. The integrative
HSE1-lacZ and
STRE-lacZ fusion constructs based on pLS9 (26) were a kind
gift of H. Ruis. The 2.3-kb PstI-Eco47III
fragments of each construct encompassing the promoters and a part of
lacZ were ligated with the 7.4-kb
PstI-Eco47III fragment of the YCp111-SSA4-lacZ plasmid, resulting in the centromeric YCp111-HSE-lacZ and
YCp111-STRE-lacZ plasmids used here.
Gene Disruptions--
The disruption cassette for
SSN8 was constructed as follows. The 2.3-kb
PstI-EcoRI fragment of YEplac195-SSN8 was
inserted into the corresponding polylinker sites of pBC KS+
(Stratagene), forming the pBC-SSN8 plasmid. Then, the 1.2-kb
PvuII-SmaI fragment of pJJ244 (27), containing
the disruption marker URA3, was inserted inside the coding
region of the SSN8 gene by BglII and
SphI sites blunted with Klenow, forming the
ssn8::URA3 cassette. The KpnI fragment
from this cassette was used to disrupt the genomic SSN8 locus. Gene disruption was verified by Southern hybridization (19). For
this, a 2.3-kb KpnI probe from the
ssn8::URA3 cassette was hybridized with
genomic DNA double digested with StuI and ScaI.
For the SFL1 disruption, a 1.2-kb
PvuII-SmaI fragment of pJJ244 was inserted into
the YEplac195-SFL1 plasmid in place of the internal BsaBI
fragment of SFL1, forming the
sfl1::URA3 cassette. The
NheI-SpeI fragment from this cassette was used to
disrupt the genomic SFL1 locus. The disruption was confirmed
by Southern hybridization of 2.5 kb of NheI-SpeI
probe from sfl1::URA3 cassette with
genomic DNA digested with EcoRV.
Preparation and Analysis of Yeast Cell Lysates--
Yeast
cultures were grown in liquid YPD medium or in a medium selective for
plasmid marker to an A600 of 1.5. The cells were harvested, washed in water, and lysed by glass beads in buffer A (25 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4, 100 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 1 mM dithiothreitol, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride). Cell debris was
removed by centrifugation at 15,000 × g for 10 min. To
equalize the protein concentration in samples, the concentration was
determined according to Ref. 28, where required.
To analyze the distribution of Rpp0, cells were treated with 0.1 mg/ml
cycloheximide for 15 min before harvesting and then broken by glass
beads in Buffer A, supplemented with 0.2 mg/ml cycloheximide and 10 mM MgCl2. The extracts were fractionated by
centrifugation through a 7-40% sucrose gradient. Distribution of
ribosomal RNA in the fractions was analyzed using 0.8% agarose electrophoresis with ethidium bromide. The presence of Rpp0 was revealed by Western blotting using a polyclonal antibody against Rpp0
(kind gift of J.-P. G. Ballesta). For Western blotting, proteins were
separated on SDS-polyacrylamide gels according to Ref. 29 and
electrophoretically transferred to nitrocellulose sheets. Bound
antibody was detected using the Amersham Biosciences ECL system.
Purification of Sfl1 and Mobility Shift Assay--
The
PvuII-HindIII fragment, encoding Sfl1 without the
first 29 amino acids, was inserted into the Ecl136II
(SacI) and HindIII sites of pET-30a (Novagen) to
generate pET30a-SFL1 encoding His6-Sfl1 fusion. E. coli strain BL21 (DE3) pLysE (Novagen) transformed with this
plasmid was grown to an A600 of 0.5 at 30 °C
and then Sfl1 expression was induced by addition of
isopropyl-
Mobility shift assays were performed as described (31). To create
labeled HSE and STRE DNA fragments, oligonucleotides
5'-gtccttctaGAAGCTTC and 5'-ctgtccccTTACGTAA, respectively, were
self-annealed by the complementary region (capital letters), and the
non-complementary region (lowercase letters) was filled in with Klenow
in the presence of [32P] A Screen for Prion-eliminating Factors--
The strain 5V-H19 and
its derivative, PS-5V-H19, were used in this work. Both strains carry
the ade2-1 UAA nonsense mutation and the SUQ5
(SUP16) UAA nonsense suppressor but differ from each other
by the SUP35 gene. The original strain carries the wild-type SUP35 gene allowing maintenance of the conventional
[PSI+], whereas its derivative possesses the
hybrid allele of this gene, SUP35-PS, necessary for
propagation of [PSI+PS] (12).
SUQ5 suppresses ade2-1 only in combination with
[PSI+] or
[PSI+PS], which results in adenine
prototrophy and white colonies. The cells lacking these determinants
require adenine and form red colonies. The strain PS-5V-H19
[PSI+PS-1] was transformed with
two S. cerevisiae genomic libraries based on the multicopy
plasmids YEplac195 and pRS426. A total of about 300,000 transformants
were screened. Expression of plasmid-encoded factors interfering with
the [PSI+PS] maintenance should
either cure [PSI+PS] or slow down
the prion conversion, causing increased levels of soluble Sup35.
Transformants with such plasmids should have red, red sectored, or pink
colonies, in contrast to white colonies of other transformants. About
500 such transformants were selected and refined by cloning. To
discriminate the antisuppression and
[PSI+PS] curing from spontaneous
[PSI+PS] loss, two clones of each
transformant were crossed to a tester 1A-H74
[PSI+PS-1] strain. In this test,
the transformants that had lost
[PSI+PS-1] spontaneously should
produce white [PSI+PS] diploids.
Such transformants were discarded. Fifty transformants produced red or
pink color in diploids and were used for plasmid DNA isolation. The
plasmids were used to transform the PS-5V-H19
[PSI+PS-1] strain, and 24 of them
yielded red, red sectored, or pink transformants (Fig.
1A). These plasmids were sequenced from the ends of genomic inserts, and the inserts were identified by comparison of the sequences with the yeast genome at
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/. Because the inserts usually
contained several genes, the genes affecting
[PSI+PS] were identified by
deletion analysis. The following genes were found: SIS1 (six
clones, two independent plasmids), YNL077w (three clones,
one independent plasmid), STI1 (one clone, one independent
plasmid), SFL1 (two clones, one independent plasmid),
SSN8 (three clones, one independent plasmid),
RPP0 (three clones, one independent plasmid),
SUP35 (six clones, three independent plasmid). The
SUP35 gene product, Sup35, causes antisuppression, but not
[PSI+PS] loss, because Sup35 does
not aggregate in [PSI+PS] cells
and does not interfere with Sup35PS prion aggregation (12). The
YNL077w gene encodes a previously uncharacterized protein of
the Hsp40 (DnaJ) family designated hereafter as Apj1
(anti-prion DnaJ). The other genes
encode Hsp40 chaperone Sis1, chaperone Sti1, transcriptional factors
Sfl1 and Ssn8, and acidic ribosomal protein Rpp0.
The effects of overproduction of these proteins, antisuppression
and prion loss, were characterized for the independently isolated strains of hybrid and conventional
[PSI+] (Table
I). These effects did not correlate. For
[PSI+PS-1], only excess Sis1
showed significant antisuppression, whereas excess Rpp0 caused the
highest prion loss but low antisuppression. It should be noted that, as
it was observed previously (9), the relative efficiency of chaperones
in prion curing varied depending on the [PSI+]
strain and the origin of Sup35 prion domain. The antisuppressor effect
of excess Sis1 was mediated by an increase in the levels of soluble
Sup35PS (Fig. 1C), which indicates that Sis1 interfered with
the prion conversion.
Disruptions of the SFL1 and SSN8 Genes--
Although all
previously described prion-curing factors represent chaperones, the
Sfl1 and Ssn8 proteins belong to a different class, being involved in
transcriptional regulation. Sfl1 is a homologue of Hsf1, a key
transcriptional factor controlling the heat shock response. Ssn8
represents a human cyclin C homologue that belongs to the
transcriptional mediator complex (32). Ssn8 and Sfl1 interact
physically and cooperate in regulation of the SUC2 gene
expression (33). To further characterize the effects of Sfl1 and Ssn8,
the chromosomal SFL1 and SSN8 genes were
disrupted by insertion of the URA3 gene in the strain
PS-5V-H19 [PSI+PS-1]. The clones
with disrupted SSN8 showed markedly reduced growth rate.
This growth reduction was
[PSI+PS]-dependent,
because the growth rate returned to normal after passages on
GuHCl-containing medium or after transformation with the
centromeric pRG416-SUP35C plasmid encoding Sup35 without the prion
domain. The growth inhibition could be because of accelerated prion
formation. In this case we would observe decreased levels of soluble
Sup35PS in the PS-5V-H19 [PSI+PS]
ssn8::URA3 strain compared with
[PSI+PS]. However, we could not
confirm this opportunity, because the soluble Sup35PS levels in these
strains were extremely low and difficult to compare. On the other hand,
the SSN8 disruption affected translation, because in the
PS-5V-H19 [psi Sfl1 Binds the Heat Shock Element--
Transcriptional response to
heat shock is mediated by binding of Hsf1 to the HSE typical of
heat-inducible promoters (36). The similarity of Sfl1 to Hsf1 suggests
that Sfl1 could also bind to HSE and direct the expression of heat
shock-related proteins. Such a possibility was studied by mobility
shift assay. HSE was synthesized as an oligonucleotide duplex of 25 base pairs. Purified Sfl1 was obtained via E. coli
expression as described under "Experimental Procedures." Labeled
HSE was incubated with Sfl1 or yeast lysates differing in the levels of
Sfl1 and run on a gel (Fig. 3). HSE showed an efficient binding to pure Sfl1, which suggests that Sfl1 can
prime the HSE-dependent transcription. HSE also bound some
components of yeast lysates, and the amount of such complexes correlated with the Sfl1 levels. This suggests that Sfl1 was a component of these complexes, together with some other proteins, because the mobility of the complexes was lower than that of the pure
Sfl1·HSE complex. The amount of the HSE·protein complexes in the
lysates lacking Sfl1 was reduced greatly respective to the wild-type
lysates. This suggests that under the experimental conditions Sfl1 was
a major protein bound to HSE. In contrast, pure Sfl1 did not bind to
STRE, another DNA element typical of many heat- and stress-inducible
promoters (36). Nevertheless, the amount of protein bound to STRE in
the lysates depended notably on the Sfl1 levels, being the lowest in
the wild-type lysates. This suggests that although Sfl1 does not bind
STRE, it exerts a significant indirect influence on the STRE-driven
transcription (Fig. 3).
Overexpressed Rpp0 Is Found in Ribosome-free Fractions--
Rpp0
represents one of the five so-called acidic ribosomal proteins that
form a stalk at the large subunit of a yeast ribosome. Among them, Rpp0
plays a key role, because it is essential for viability and mediates
binding of four other acidic ribosomal proteins to the ribosome.
Earlier, it was observed that the increased transcription of
RPP0 did not lead to increased levels of Rpp0 and its
appearance free from ribosomes (37). Such a conclusion would exclude a
possibility of any effects of multicopy RPP0. Therefore, we
studied the levels of Rpp0 and its subcellular distribution. The
immunoblot analysis of Rpp0 revealed an ~3-fold excess of it in the
total extracts of cells with multicopy RPP0 (Fig.
4). The lysates were fractionated by
centrifugation through a sucrose density gradient, and the ribosomal
fractions were identified by the presence of ribosomal RNA. This
allowed finding Rpp0 in subribosomal fractions, though not in a
free monomeric form. The amount of ribosome-free Rpp0 was rather low in
a control lysate and much higher in the one overexpressing Rpp0.
Therefore, the multicopy expression of RPP0 led to the
appearance of Rpp0 in the form of relatively large ribosome-free
complexes. This result does not strictly contradict the earlier data
(37) because of the use of different expression systems. These
authors (37) used a single-copy GAL1 promoter, which
presumably should provide a lower Rpp0 expression level than multicopy
RPP0.
Alterations of the Sfl1, Ssn8, and Rpp0 Levels Affect Expression of
Chaperones and Induce Heat Shock Response--
In our experiments, the
prion curing was probably because of the altered levels of proteins
involved directly in the prion propagation. The studied factors could,
themselves, either belong to such proteins or act indirectly by
altering expression of the proteins of this group. The first
opportunity appears likely for the chaperones Sis1, Apj1, and Sti1,
whose function is to mediate the protein folding. The second suits best
for the transcriptional factors Sfl1 and Ssn8, as well as for the
ribosomal protein Rpp0. Although Rpp0 is not a transcriptional factor,
its influence on gene expression may be expected, because the lack of
acidic ribosomal proteins Rpp1A/B and Rpp2A/B, structurally and
functionally related to Rpp0, altered the levels of many proteins,
including chaperones. As a particular case of the indirect mechanism,
the [PSI+PS] loss could be because
of decreased expression of Sup35PS. Indeed, earlier we have observed
the [PSI+] loss at decreased Sup35
levels.2 However, here
we found that the overexpression of Ssn8, Sfl1, and Rpp0 did not
reduce the Sup35 levels (Table II
and Western blotting data; not shown). Furthermore, the overexpression
of Rpp0 increased Sup35 levels about 2-fold, which should counteract with, rather than promote, the prion curing.
If Sfl1 and Ssn8 regulate expression of the chaperone genes, they would
affect the levels of many chaperones, and the curing of prions will
likely be because of a combination of changes in the levels of several
chaperones, rather than of any single chaperone. It is known that
expression of the chaperone-encoding genes usually is controlled by
either one or combination of the two promoter elements, HSE and STRE
(36). To characterize the effects of overproduced Sfl1, Ssn8, and Rpp0
on the chaperone expression, we determined their influence on the
levels of lacZ expression under the control of model
promoters containing either HSE or STRE. We also tested the activity of
SSA4 and HSP104 promoters (Table II).
SSA4 is an example of a gene expressed only under heat shock
or stress conditions, and HSP104 is known for its unique and
essential role in prion propagation. Excess Sfl1 increased the
HSE-driven expression about 3-fold, which is consistent with its
binding to the HSE element, and suggests that Sfl1 acts here as
transcriptional activator, rather than repressor. Excess Sfl1 also
increased the STRE-dependent expression. Excess Ssn8 did not affect the level of HSE-driven expression but repressed the STRE
promoter 1.5-fold and the SSA4 promoter 2-fold. The lack of
Ssn8, conversely, activated the STRE- and SSA4-controlled
expression, consistent with its repressor function. Excess Rpp0
increased the HSE- and SSA4-driven expression to
approximately the same levels as excess Sfl1.
Because altered levels of Sfl1, Ssn8, and Rpp0 affected the expression
of chaperones, they are also likely to affect the resistance to heat
shock. To check this, we tested the ability of cells with increased or
decreased levels of Sfl1, Ssn8, and Rpp0 to grow at 37 °C. At this
temperature, because of accumulation of misfolded proteins, yeast cells
may become transiently arrested in the G1 phase of the cell
cycle via an Hsf1-dependent mechanism (38). Although the
control PS-5V-H19 [psi In this work, a search for the cellular factors interfering with
the [PSI+PS] propagation was
conducted. Although previously only chaperones (Hsp104, Ssb1, Ssa1, and
Ydj1) were known as such factors, this search revealed, in addition to
chaperones Sis1, Apj1, and Sti1, transcriptional factors Sfl1 and Ssn8,
and acidic ribosomal protein Rpp0. We propose that all revealed
anti-prion factors could act either by directly interfering with the
Sup35PS prion conversion or by altering the levels of the proteins
involved in this process. The former mechanism appears likely for the
chaperones, whereas the latter appears likely for the transcriptional
factors and the ribosomal protein.
Chaperones That Cure Yeast Prions--
Two of the three newly
found chaperones, Sis1 and Apj1 (Ynl077w) belong to the Hsp40 family
homologous to bacterial DnaJ chaperone. For Apj1, this is a first
observation of a phenotypic effect, and it supports a chaperone
function of this protein. Apj1 shows highest similarity to Ydj1 among
numerous yeast DnaJ homologues. Two kinds of anti-prion effects were
expected in this work, the [PSI+PS] curing and the
antisuppression. A significant antisuppression was only observed for
the overexpressed Sis1. The antisuppression reflected the reduced
efficiency of prion formation, because we found an increased level of
soluble Sup35 in the corresponding
[PSI+PS] transformant. It is
likely that the three considered Hsp40 proteins function similarly in
prion curing. For example, they could cooperate with Hsp104 and Hsp70
in disassembly of prion aggregates (14). It is of interest to note that
whereas the antisuppressor effect of Sis1 was much stronger than that of Ydj1, Sis1 is normally expressed at 10-15-fold lower levels than
Ydj1, which represents a major Hsp40 in yeast (39). Thus, Sis1
molecules are much more efficient in inhibiting prion formation.
No chaperones of the Hsp70 family were found in this screen. This is
not surprising, because these chaperones are tightly autoregulated and
allow a significantly lower increase of their expression than Hsp40
chaperones. For example, Ssa1 had a rather weak effect, and Ssb1 had no
effect on [PSI+PS-1] used in the
screen (9). Another chaperone found in this screen is Sti1. This
protein represents a component of the Hsp90·Hsp70 complex (40). Thus,
it is related to both Hsp90, which did not influence the
[PSI+] propagation, and Hsp70 (Ssa1 and Ssa2),
which interfered with [PSI+PS] but
reduced the [PSI+] curing by excess Hsp104
(10). Sti1 could interfere with prion formation either directly or by
modulating the activity of Ssa chaperones at the functional level.
Also, the overexpression of Sti1 was shown to increase the Ssa4
expression (41), and thus it could act indirectly by altering the
expression of Ssa or other chaperones.
Non-chaperone Proteins Curing [PSI+PS]
Affect the Expression of Stress-inducible Genes--
One of these
proteins, Sfl1, is a transcriptional factor structurally similar to the
heat shock factor Hsf1, which plays a key role in the heat shock
response. In contrast to Hsf1, the previously described effects of Sfl1
were related mainly to the cell wall biogenesis (42). Furthermore, Sfl1
is presumed to mediate the transcriptional repression rather than
activation (33). Sfl1 is highly similar to Hsf1 in the region
corresponding to its DNA binding domain, which suggests that Sfl1 could
also bind to HSE and thus regulate chaperone expression. We confirmed this by finding that purified Sfl1 binds to HSE in vitro.
Capacity of the cell lysates to bind HSE correlated with the Sfl1
levels and was rather low in the lysate lacking Sfl1. This suggests
that Sfl1 was one of the major proteins bound to HSE under the given experimental conditions. The ability to bind to HSE was also shown for
Skn7 (43) and could be expected of Mga1 and Hsm2 based on sequence
similarity.3 Apparently,
these proteins and Sfl1 should compete with Hsf1 for binding to HSE,
thus performing a complex regulation of HSE-dependent expression in response to different environmental challenges. Sfl1 did
not bind to the STRE. Nevertheless, the amount of the STRE·protein
complex in cell lysates notably depended on Sfl1, being increased both
in lysate with excess Sfl1 and in lysate lacking it. This suggests that
Sfl1 has a significant indirect influence on the STRE-controlled expression.
Another transcription factor revealed by
[PSI+PS] curing is Ssn8, which
represents a subunit of the transcriptional mediator complex (32). Ssn8
represents a homologue of human cyclin C, and it degrades upon entry to
meiosis and heat shock. Ssn8 acted as transcriptional repressor of
SSA1 and presumably some other chaperone genes (44).
Importantly, Ssn8 was shown to interact with Sfl1 both physically and
functionally. These proteins coimmunoprecipitated from cell lysates,
and both participated in the transcriptional repression of the
SUC2 gene (33). Because Sfl1 and Ssn8 are involved in
transcription, their excess is likely to affect the expression of many proteins.
To characterize the influence of the excess Sfl1 and Ssn8 on the
overall chaperone expression, we used model promoter constructs with
the lacZ reporter gene. The excess of Sfl1 activated the HSE
promoter 3-fold, which agrees with the Sfl1 binding to this element and
suggests that Sfl1 acts as activator, rather than repressor, for this
element. It also induced the STRE-driven expression but only 1.5-fold.
This also agrees with the observed increase of the amount of protein
bound to this DNA fragment in cell lysate with increased Sfl1 levels.
In contrast, the excess of Ssn8 acted only on the STRE promoter and
decreased its activity 1.5-fold, whereas the lack of Ssn8 induced it
1.5-fold. These data are consistent with the proposed Ssn8 function as
a repressor of transcription (45). Thus, both Sfl1 and Ssn8 should
affect significantly the expression of many chaperones, which is likely
to be a cause for their prion-curing effects. It is noteworthy that in
contrast to the earlier data, Sfl1 and Ssn8 exerted essentially
different influence on transcription. This may indicate that these
proteins do not always cooperate in their action.
Although the ribosomal protein Rpp0 is not supposed to participate in
transcription, we observed that overproduced Rpp0 increased the HSE-
and SSA4-driven lacZ expression 2.5-fold, which
could be sufficient for the observed
[PSI+PS] curing. At the same time,
the STRE and HSP104 promoters showed little activation. This
difference in the effects of Rpp0 was defined at the transcriptional
rather than post-transcriptional level, because the translated message,
lacZ, was the same in all cases. We suggest that the excess
of Rpp0 may affect transcription by participating in it either directly
or indirectly. The latter opportunity is related to the observation
that the lack of acidic ribosomal proteins Rpp1A/B and Rpp2A/B,
structurally and functionally related to Rpp0, significantly affected
the expression of many proteins and chaperones in particular
(46). It was proposed that the altered content of acidic proteins in
ribosome changed its specificity toward different mRNAs. It appears
unlikely that overproduction of Rpp0 would alter its content in
ribosomes, because it is difficult to imagine that a ribosome can
accommodate more than one molecule of this protein. However, the
ribosome-free Rpp0 accumulated upon its overexpression may titrate a
significant portion of Rpp1/2, thus creating a subpopulation of
ribosomes that lack these proteins. This, in turn, may alter the
synthesis of transcriptional factors that regulate the expression of chaperones.
Implications--
-The properties of yeast prions suggest that
they may be used as a model for studying both prions and amyloids of
higher eukaryotes (1). This implies that the factors similar to those
found here may be active against human and animal prion and amyloid
diseases. This is supported by the observation that overexpression of
Hsp40 and Hsp70 chaperones in human cell lines interfered with
aggregation of proteins with expanded polyglutamine tracts and
amyloidogenic immunoglobulin light chains (47, 48). In this work and
previously (9) we observed that the efficiency of the prion curing
factors varied greatly depending on the prion strain and the primary
structure of the prion domain. This suggests that the use of screening
systems based on different prions may allow finding more factors
involved in the prion-like processes. On the other hand, this should
complicate the prediction of anti-prion activity of a particular factor
against a given prion or amyloid. The non-chaperone factors similar to those discovered in this work could be no less active against prions
and amyloids than individual chaperones, because they allow activation
of several chaperones simultaneously.
We thank Frederique Ness (University of
Kent, Kent, United Kingdom) and Helmut Ruis (University of Vienna) for
the kind gift of plasmids and Juan-Pedro Ballesta (Universidad
Autonoma de Madrid) for the anti-Rpp0 antibody and critical reading of
the manuscript.
*
The work was supported in part by grants from the Wellcome
Trust (to V. V. K.) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the United States Army Research Office, and the Russian Foundation for
Basic Research (to M. D. T.-A.).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.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, March 28, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M111547200
2
Unpublished data.
3
See Yeast Proteome Database:
www.proteome.com/databases/YPD/reports/HSF1.html.
The abbreviations used are:
HSE, heat
shock element;
STRE, stress response element.
Increased Expression of Hsp40 Chaperones, Transcriptional
Factors, and Ribosomal Protein Rpp0 Can Cure Yeast Prions*
![]()
ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
]), PS-5V-H19
(obtained from 5V-H19 by replacing SUP35 for the chimerical
SUP35-PS allele), and their derivatives carrying
independently isolated [PSI+] variants, weak
and strong determinants ([PSI+W]
and [PSI+S]) in 5V-H19 and strong
[PSI+PS-1] and
[PSI+PS-2] variants in PS-5V-H19
(12). Strain 1A-H74 (MAT
ade2-1 SUQ5 ura3-52
leu2-3,112 his3 SUP35-PS
[PSI+PS-1]) was derived from a
cross between strains PS-5V-H19
[PSI+PS-1] and 4V-H73
[psi
] (12). Yeast were grown at 30 °C in
rich (YPD) or synthetic (SC) media. Standard genetic methods
were used (17). DNA transformation of lithium acetate-treated yeast
cells was performed as described (18). To determine the
[PSI+] loss, four transformants with each
plasmid were grown on 5-fluoroorotic acid medium (17) to induce the
plasmid loss and then cloned on YPD medium. The loss of
[PSI+] or
[PSI+PS] was scored as a ratio of
red- and white-colored colonies. At least 100 clones of each
transformant were counted (300 or more for cases of less than 1% loss
frequency). To test the invasive growth, cells were grown on YPD for 3 days and washed off the agar surface, and the plates were incubated for
1 more day.
-Galactosidase Activity Assay--
-Galactosidase activity
was measured as described (30) except that the cells were permeabilized
by subjecting them to two freeze/thawing cycles using liquid nitrogen
and a water bath at 37 °C.
-D-thiogalactopyranoside to 1 mM
for 20 h at 17 °C. Cells were harvested by centrifugation for
10 min at 2500 × g, resuspended in 3 ml of TBS buffer
(150 mM NaCl, 25 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.8) with
0.2% Triton X-100, and subjected to two freeze/thawing cycles. Then
DNase I was added to a final concentration of 150 µg/ml, and
phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride was added to a final concentration of 1 mM. The cell suspension was incubated on ice for 20 min and
then centrifuged at 12,000 × g for 10 min at 4 °C
to remove cell debris. The His6-Sfl1 protein was purified
from the supernatant using 0.3 ml of TALON resin (CLONTECH) according to the instructions from the
manufacturer. The purity of the protein was confirmed by
electrophoresis with Coomassie Blue staining.
-dATP. The
His6-Sfl1 protein or yeast lysates were incubated with 1 ng
(1 × 105 cpm) of the labeled HSE or STRE fragments
for 20 min at room temperature in 25 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 100 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 7 mM
MgCl2, 10% glycerol, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl
fluoride, 1 mg of poly(dI-dC) nonspecific competitor DNA.
Protein·DNA complexes were resolved by electrophoresis in a
4.5% non-denaturing polyacrylamide gel at 70 V in 0.5× TBE buffer (89 mM Tris base, 89 mM boric acid, 2 mM EDTA) for 1.5 h. The gel was dried on filter paper
(1 h, 80 °C) and exposed to x-ray film overnight at
70 °C.
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (68K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
The effects of overproduced prion-curing
factors. A, transformants of PS-5V-H19
[PSI+PS-1] and 5V-H19
[PSI+S] with multicopy plasmids
carrying the indicated genes. Control, transformants with
the empty YEplac195 vector. The medium contained a reduced
amount of adenine (6 mg/liter) for better development of red colony
color. B, antisuppression test. The transformants were
streaked on medium selective for the plasmid marker and either
containing 6 mg/liter adenine or lacking it. C, the
antisuppressor effect of overproduced Sis1 is because of increased
levels of soluble Sup35. The lysates of PS-5V-H19
[PSI+PS-1] transformants with
multicopy plasmid encoding SIS1 or control plasmid were
fractionated by centrifugation. Soluble, pellet, and intermediate
fractions are presented.
Effects of the anti-prion factors
, no effect. Control,
transformants with the YEplac195 vector.
] background it showed 2-fold
increased levels of nonsense readthrough compared with
[psi
] (data not shown). Such an increase did
not allow the suppression of ade2-1 and did not affect
growth of the [psi
] strain, but it is likely
that, in combination with
[PSI+PS], which itself is a strong
suppressor, it could be detrimental. In addition, the cells of both
sfl1::URA3 and
ssn8::URA3 disruptants were
distinguished by increased flocculence and invasive growth (Fig.
2). These phenotypes were observed
earlier for the sfl1 disruptants (34), and the flocculence
was observed in ssn8 mutants (35), whereas the invasive
growth of the ssn8 disruptants is a novel finding.

View larger version (120K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Disruption of SFL1 and
SSN8 causes invasive growth in the PS-5V-H19
[psi
] strain. A, the
plate with indicated disruptants was photographed before (total growth)
and after (invasive growth) washing the cells off the agar surface.
B, microscopic image of the wild-type (WT) cells
and disruptant cells recovered from agar.

View larger version (70K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
Sfl1 binds to the HSE, but not STRE, DNA
elements. Labeled HSE and STRE DNA fragments were incubated with
either purified His6-Sfl1 or with yeast lysates prepared
from the PS-5V-H19 [psi
] cells with the
multicopy SFL1 plasmid (mSFL1), Yeplac195 vector
(Control), or SFL1 disruption
(
SFL1) and analyzed on a 4.5% polyacrylamide gel. The
positions of HSE and STRE complexes with His6-Sfl1 or
lysate proteins are indicated by arrows.
, no
His6-Sfl1, +, His6-Sfl1 added.

View larger version (80K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
Overproduced Rpp0 accumulates in subribosomal
fractions. Lysates were prepared from the PS-5V-H19
[psi
] transformants with either the
Yeplac195 vector (C, control) or multicopy RPP0 plasmid
(M, mRPP0). A, comparison of the Rpp0
levels by Western blotting of total lysates; 1/2,
50% load. B, the lysates were fractionated by
centrifugation and analyzed for Rpp0 by Western blotting. The Rpp0
levels are increased compared with control in subribosomal fractions 3 to 7. C, determination of the fractions containing
ribosomes. The same fractions were separated on agarose gel and stained
with ethidium bromide. The 26 S and 18 S ribosomal RNAs are present in
fractions 8 and higher.
Alteration of the SFL1, SSN8, and RPP0 copy number influences activity
of the chaperone promoters
] cells with
described alterations of the SFL1, SSN8, and
RPP0 genes. The most significant differences with the
control are given in bold. Control, transformants with the YEplac195
vector.
] cells almost did not
grow at 37 °C, the presence of multicopy plasmids with SFL1
and RPP0, but not SSN8 gene, allowed them to grow at this temperature (Fig. 5). Even
better growth was observed for derivatives of this strain disrupted for
SSN8 or SFL1.

View larger version (63K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
The altered expression of
SFL1, SSN8, and RPP0
causes tolerance to increased temperature. The PS-5V-H19
[psi
] transformants with multicopy
RPP0 (mRPP0), SFL1 (mSFL1),
and SSN8 (mSSN8) plasmids and disruptants for
SSN8 (
SSN8) and SFL1
(
SFL1) were grown at 30 or 37 °C on YPD or SC medium
supplemented with all required amino acids and nucleotides.
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
![]()
FOOTNOTES
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 7-095-4146738;
Fax: 7-095-4152962; E-mail: vita@cardio.ru.
![]()
ABBREVIATIONS
![]()
REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
1.
Wickner, R. B.,
Taylor, K. L.,
Edskes, H. K.,
Maddelein, M. L.,
Moriyama, H.,
and Roberts, B. T.
(2000)
J. Struct. Biol.
130,
310-322[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
2.
Patino, M. M.,
Liu, J. J.,
Glover, J. R.,
and Lindquist, S.
(1996)
Science
273,
622-626[Abstract]
3.
Paushkin, S. V.,
Kushnirov, V. V.,
Smirnov, V. N.,
and Ter-Avanesyan, M. D.
(1996)
EMBO J.
15,
3127-3134[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
4.
Derkatch, I. L.,
Chernoff, Y. O.,
Kushnirov, V. V.,
Inge-Vechtomov, S. G.,
and Liebman, S. W.
(1996)
Genetics
144,
1375-1386[Abstract]
5.
Kochneva-Pervukhova, N. V.,
Chechenova, M. B.,
Valouev, I. A.,
Kushnirov, V. V.,
Smirnov, V. N.,
and Ter-Avanesyan, M. D.
(2001)
Yeast
18,
489-497[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
6.
Glover, J. R.,
Kowal, A. S.,
Schirmer, E. C.,
Patino, M. M.,
Liu, J. J.,
and Lindquist, S.
(1997)
Cell
89,
811-819[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
7.
Chernoff, Y. O.,
Lindquist, S. L.,
Ono, B.,
Inge-Vechtomov, S. G.,
and Liebman, S. W.
(1995)
Science
268,
880-884 8.
Chacinska, A.,
Szczesniak, B.,
Kochneva-Pervukhova, N. V.,
Kushnirov, V. V.,
Ter-Avanesyan, M. D.,
and Boguta, M.
(2001)
Curr. Genet.
39,
62-67[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
9.
Kushnirov, V. V.,
Kryndushkin, D. S.,
Boguta, M.,
Smirnov, V. N.,
and Ter- Avanesyan, M. D.
(2000)
Curr. Biol.
10,
1443-1446[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
10.
Newnam, G. P.,
Wegrzyn, R. D.,
Lindquist, S. L.,
and Chernoff, Y. O.
(1999)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19,
1325-1333 11.
Jung, G.,
Jones, G.,
Wegrzyn, R. D.,
and Masison, D. C.
(2000)
Genetics
156,
559-570 12.
Kushnirov, V. V.,
Kochneva-Pervukhova, N. V.,
Chechenova, M. B.,
Frolova, N. S.,
and Ter-Avanesyan, M. D.
(2000)
EMBO J.
19,
324-331[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
13.
Moriyama, H.,
Edskes, H. K.,
and Wickner, R. B.
(2000)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20,
8916-8922 14.
Sondheimer, N.,
Lopez, N.,
Craig, E. A.,
and Lindquist, S.
(2001)
EMBO J.
20,
2435-2442[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
15.
Lu, Z.,
and Cyr, D. M.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
27824-27830 16.
Glover, J. R.,
and Lindquist, S.
(1998)
Cell
94,
73-82[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
17.
Sherman, F.,
Fink, G. R.,
and Hicks, J. B.
(1986)
Methods in Yeast Genetics
, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
18.
Gietz, R. D.,
Schiestl, R. H.,
Willems, A. R.,
and Woods, R. A.
(1995)
Yeast
11,
355-360[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
19.
Sambrook, J.,
Fritsch, E. E.,
and Maniatis, T.
(1989)
Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual
, 2nd Ed.
, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
20.
Urakov, V. N.,
Valouev, I. A.,
Lewitin, E. I.,
Paushkin, S. V.,
Kosorukov, V. S.,
Kushnirov, V. V.,
Smirnov, V. N.,
and Ter-Avanesyan, M. D.
(2001)
BMC Mol. Biol.
2,
9[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
21.
Lorenz, M. C.,
and Heitman, J.
(1998)
Genetics
150,
1443-1457 22.
Gietz, R. D.,
and Sugino, A.
(1988)
Gene
74,
527-534[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
23.
Myers, A. M.,
Tzagoloff, A.,
Kinney, D. M.,
and Lusty, C. J.
(1986)
Gene
45,
299-310[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
24.
Ter-Avanesyan, M. D.,
Kushnirov, V. V.,
Dagkesamanskaya, A. R.,
Didichenko, S. A.,
Chernoff, Y. O.,
Inge-Vechtomov, S. G.,
and Smirnov, V. N.
(1993)
Mol. Microbiol.
7,
683-692[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
25.
Ferreira, P. C.,
Ness, F.,
Edwards, S. R.,
Cox, B. S.,
and Tuite, M. F.
(2001)
Mol. Microbiol.
40,
1357-1369[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
26.
Sarokin, L.,
and Carlson, M.
(1985)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
5,
2521-2526 27.
Jones, J. S.,
and Prakash, L.
(1990)
Yeast
6,
363-366[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
28.
Bradford, M. M.
(1976)
Anal. Biochem.
72,
248-254[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
29.
Laemmli, U. K.
(1970)
Nature
227,
680-685[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
30.
Casadaban, M. J.,
Martinez-Arias, A.,
Shapira, S. K.,
and Chou, J.
(1983)
Methods Enzymol.
100,
293-308[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
31.
Lowndes, N. F.,
Johnson, A. L.,
and Johnston, L. H.
(1991)
Nature
350,
247-250[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
32.
Li, Y.,
Bjorklund, S.,
Jiang, Y. W.,
Kim, Y. J.,
Lane, W. S.,
Stillman, D. J.,
and Kornberg, R. D.
(1995)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
92,
10864-10868 33.
Song, W.,
and Carlson, M.
(1998)
EMBO J.
17,
5757-5765[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
34.
Robertson, L. S.,
and Fink, G. R.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
13783-13787 35.
Carlson, M.,
Osmond, B. C.,
Neigeborn, L.,
and Botstein, D.
(1984)
Genetics
107,
19-32 36.
Piper, P.
(1997)
in
Yeast Stress Responses
(Hohmann, S.
, and Mager, W. H., eds)
, R. G. Landes Company, New York
37.
Santos, C.,
and Ballesta, J. P.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
15689-15696 38.
Trotter, E. W.,
Berenfeld, L.,
Krause, S. A.,
Petsko, G. A.,
and Gray, J. V.
(2001)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
98,
7313-7318 39.
Yan, W.,
and Craig, E. A.
(1999)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19,
7751-7758 40.
Chang, H. C.,
and Lindquist, S.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
24983-24988 41.
Nicolet, C. M.,
and Craig, E. A.
(1989)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
9,
3638-3646 42.
Fujita, A.,
Kikuchi, Y.,
Kuhara, S.,
Misumi, Y.,
Matsumoto, S.,
and Kobayashi, H.
(1989)
Gene
85,
321-328[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
43.
Raitt, D. C.,
Johnson, A. L.,
Erkine, A. M.,
Makino, K.,
Morgan, B.,
Gross, D. S.,
and Johnston, L. H.
(2000)
Mol. Biol. Cell
11,
2335-2347 44.
Cooper, K. F.,
Mallory, M. J.,
Smith, J. B.,
and Strich, R.
(1997)
EMBO J.
16,
4665-4675[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
45.
Cooper, K. F.,
and Strich, R.
(1999)
Gene Expr.
8,
43-57[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
46.
Remacha, M.,
Jimenez-Diaz, A.,
Bermejo, B.,
Rodriguez-Gabriel, M. A.,
Guarinos, E.,
and Ballesta, J. P.
(1995)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
15,
4754-4762[Abstract]
47.
Chai, Y.,
Koppenhafer, S. L.,
Bonini, N. M.,
and Paulson, H. L.
(1999)
J. Neurosci.
19,
10338-10347 48.
Dul, J. L.,
Davis, D. P.,
Williamson, E. K.,
Stevens, F. J.,
and Argon, Y.
(2001)
J. Cell Biol.
152,
705-716
Copyright © 2002 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:
![]() |
D. Sharma and D. C. Masison Functionally Redundant Isoforms of a Yeast Hsp70 Chaperone Subfamily Have Different Antiprion Effects Genetics, July 1, 2008; 179(3): 1301 - 1311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. N. Bagriantsev, E. O. Gracheva, J. E. Richmond, and S. W. Liebman Variant-specific [PSI+] Infection Is Transmitted by Sup35 Polymers within [PSI+] Aggregates with Heterogeneous Protein Composition Mol. Biol. Cell, June 1, 2008; 19(6): 2433 - 2443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Kryndushkin and R. B. Wickner Nucleotide Exchange Factors for Hsp70s Are Required for [URE3] Prion Propagation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Mol. Biol. Cell, June 1, 2007; 18(6): 2149 - 2154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H.-Y. Lian, H. Zhang, Z.-R. Zhang, H. M. Loovers, G. W. Jones, P. J. E. Rowling, L. S. Itzhaki, J.-M. Zhou, and S. Perrett Hsp40 Interacts Directly with the Native State of the Yeast Prion Protein Ure2 and Inhibits Formation of Amyloid-like Fibrils J. Biol. Chem., April 20, 2007; 282(16): 11931 - 11940. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. E. |