![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 38, 34760-34765, September 20, 2002
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Cell Biology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208-3500
Received for publication, May 14, 2002
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The proteasome can actively unfold proteins by
sequentially unraveling their substrates from the attachment point of
the degradation signal. To investigate the steric constraints imposed
on substrate proteins during their degradation by the proteasome, we
constructed a model protein in which specific parts of the polypeptide
chain were covalently connected through disulfide bridges. The
cross-linked model proteins were fully degraded by the proteasome, but
two or more cross-links retarded the degradation slightly. These
results suggest that the pore of the proteasome allows the concurrent passage of at least three stretches of a polypeptide chain. A degradation channel that can tolerate some steric bulk may reconcile the two opposing needs for degradation that is compartmentalized to
avoid aberrant proteolysis yet able to handle a range of substrates of
various sizes.
Protein degradation is a critical part of cellular regulation (1).
In eukaryotic cells, a multicomponent protease called the proteasome is
responsible for the turnover of short-lived regulatory proteins, the
removal of abnormal polypeptides, and the production of peptides for
antigen presentation (2). Degradation of short-lived regulatory
proteins is essential for a wide range of cellular functions including
cell cycle control and signal transduction (3). Failure to degrade
aggregates of misfolded proteins can lead to disease such as
Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis, and Huntington's disease (4). Degradation by the proteasome
usually involves two consecutive steps: targeting of the substrate for
degradation by the attachment of polyubiquitin chains and degradation
of the tagged protein by the proteasome with concomitant release of
ubiquitin (5).
The active sites of proteolysis of the proteasome by themselves show
little substrate specificity. Specificity of degradation is achieved by
sequestering the proteolytic sites within the structure and tightly
controlling access. The three-dimensional structure of the proteasome
has been determined by x-ray crystallography and electron microscopy
(6-11). The proteasome consists of a central proteolytic core particle
with regulatory caps at either end of it. The core particle is made of
two copies of seven different At its narrowest point, the opened degradation channel is ~13 Å wide
(11, 12). This constriction is too small for folded proteins to fit
through it, and substrate proteins must unfold to gain access to the
proteolytic sites. Preventing unfolding of a substrate protein protects
it from degradation (15). It is now thought that the ATPase subunits in
the cap can actively unfold protein substrates (16). Studies with model
proteins with N-terminal ubiquitination sites suggested that the
unfolding is induced by the unraveling of the substrate from its N
terminus by the proteasome (17). In model proteins with more than one folded domain, the proteasome first unfolded and degraded the domain at
the N terminus adjacent to the ubiquitination site and then the next
domain in the protein (17). Together, these findings conjure an image
of the proteasome threading a single polypeptide chain through the
degradation channel as it degrades its substrate sequentially. This
image is consistent with the small size of the entrance to the
degradation channel.
The steric constraints of the proteasome degradation channel raise some
questions. For example, how are proteins degraded that contain large
modification such as O-linked carbohydrates? Can a
multidomain protein be degraded from its center so that multiple
polypeptide chains are threaded through the degradation channel
simultaneously? The ubiquitination sites for a small number of
substrates have been defined. For some of them, ubiquitination occurs
near the N terminus, as is the case for proteins targeted for
degradation by the N-end rule (18), for I To investigate the steric constraints imposed on substrate proteins by
the proteasome structure, we determined whether the degradation channel
is flexible enough to allow more than one polypeptide to pass through
it at the same time. We constructed a model protein in which specific
parts of the polypeptide chain were covalently connected through
disulfide bridges. We found that cross-linked model proteins were fully
degraded by the proteasome although the presence of two or more
disulfide bridges retarded degradation. Therefore, we suggest that the
pore of the proteasome permits the concurrent passage of at least three
polypeptide chains.
Substrate Proteins--
Protease substrates were derived from
barnase, a ribonuclease from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens
(32), and dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR)1 from
Escherichia coli (33). The two proteins were linked
in-frame, with barnase at the N terminus followed by DHFR. Ubiquitin
and a 40-amino acid linker derived from the E. coli lac
repressor were attached to the N terminus of barnase to target the
substrate protein to the proteasome by the N-end rule pathway (Fig. 1)
(15, 34). In reticulocyte lysate, the N-terminal ubiquitin is rapidly cleaved, and the remaining protein is ubiquitinated on two lysine residues in the 40-amino acid linker at the N termini of the fusion proteins (35).
Wild-type barnase, the ubiquitin domain, and the targeting linker do
not contain cysteine residues. Two cysteine residues in DHFR were
mutated to alanine. The changes did not affect the affinity of DHFR
toward methotrexate significantly (the dissociation constant is ~20
nM in the buffer employed for the degradation assay). We
introduced three different disulfide bonds into barnase to covalently
link neighboring
The genes for the various proteasome substrates were assembled using
standard molecular biology techniques in pGEM-3Zf(+) vectors (Promega
Corp.), and the constructs were verified by DNA sequencing. Radioactive
proteins were expressed from a T7 promoter by in vitro
transcription and translation in E. coli S30 extract supplemented with [35S]methionine. Neighboring cysteine
residues were induced to form disulfide bridges by oxidation with 10 mM ferricyanide (K3Fe(CN)6) for 10 min at room temperature. Under these conditions disulfide bridge
formation is complete, and no unreacted cysteine residues could be
detected by modification with the sulfhydryl-reactive reagent
4-acetamido-4'-maleimidylstilbene-2,2'-disulfonic acid (SDSM) followed
by SDS-PAGE (36) (data not shown). The proteins were partially purified
by high speed centrifugation before cross-linking and by ammonium
sulfate precipitation after cross-linking as described previously
(36).
Proteasome Degradation Assay--
Degradation by the proteasome
was assayed in rabbit reticulocyte lysate essentially as described (17,
38) except that the lysate was dialyzed against 10 mM
Tris-Cl, pH 8.0, prior to the degradation assay. Substrate proteins
produced by in vitro translation were resuspended in 5 µl
of buffer (25% (v/v) glycerol, 25 mM MgCl2,
0.25 M Tris-Cl, pH 7.4), added to 20 µl of ATP-depleted reticulocyte, and incubated for 20 min at 25 °C to allow removal of
the N-terminal ubiquitin by deubiquitinating enzymes (38). Ubiquitination and degradation were initiated by addition of ATP and an
ATP-regenerating system (2 mM ATP, 10 mM
creatine phosphate, 0.1 mg/ml creatine phosphokinase; final
concentrations), and incubation continued at 25 °C. At designated
time points, 2.4-µl aliquots were transferred to 20 µl of ice-cold
5% trichloroacetic acid, and the trichloroacetic acid-insoluble
fractions were analyzed by SDS-PAGE and electronic autoradiography
(17). For the degradation of reduced substrate, protein substrate was
preincubated with 10 mM DTT for 2 min. Degradation was
strictly dependent on a destabilizing N-terminal amino acid (arginine
versus methionine) and ATP and was inhibited between 2- and
5-fold by the dipeptide Arg-Ala (10 mM, data not shown),
which suppresses ubiquitination (39).
Substrate Proteins--
We investigated the degradation of
proteasome substrates in which loops were introduced into the
polypeptide chain by disulfide bridges. The substrate proteins
consisted of three parts: an N-terminal targeting region, a
barnase domain, and finally a DHFR domain (Fig.
1). To prevent specific parts of the
substrate protein from unfolding, we introduced covalent cross-links
into the barnase domain by mutating pairs of residues to cysteine at
positions that allow disulfide bridge formation upon oxidation (36,
37). The disulfide bridges were introduced at three different
positions, Cys43-Cys80,
Cys70-Cys92, and
Cys85-Cys102 (the numbering refers to the
residue position within the barnase domain). In addition to fusion
proteins with these three single disulfide bridges, we constructed all
combinations of double disulfide bridge mutants and a fusion protein
with all three disulfide bridges present simultaneously. After
synthesis of radioactively labeled fusion proteins by in
vitro transcription and translation, disulfide bridge formation
was induced by oxidation with ferricyanide, as described previously
(36). Disulfide bridge formation was complete, and no unreacted
cysteine residues could be detected with the sulfhydryl-reactive
reagent SDSM (data not shown). The constructs were targeted to the
proteasome in reticulocyte lysate by the N-end rule pathway (34), and
ubiquitination occurred on two lysine residues in a 40-amino acid
linker at the N termini of the fusion proteins (35).
A Polypeptide Loop Can Be Translocated through the Proteasome
Channel--
We first sought to determine whether a polypeptide loop
could be translocated through the degradation channel. To address this
question, we measured the effect of intramolecular disulfide bridges
within the barnase domain on degradation of the fusion protein by the
proteasome. Because disulfide bonds are covalent cross-links, they
persist after a protein is unfolded and introduce a permanent
polypeptide loop into the primary structure (see below). Radiolabeled
fusion proteins were synthesized by coupled in vitro transcription and translation in E. coli S30 extract, and
disulfide bridge formation was induced by oxidation (36). After partial purification, the proteins were incubated in reticulocyte lysate, and
their degradation was monitored by SDS-PAGE and electronic autoradiography (Fig. 2). Degradation
occurred with the same half-time of 25-30 min for fusion proteins
without cross-links and those containing a single disulfide bridge
(Fig. 2F). The same degradation kinetics were also obtained
when disulfide bridges were reduced by DTT before assaying for
degradation. The proteasome degrades proteins consisting of multiple
domains sequentially beginning with the degradation signal (17).
Therefore, if the cross-links blocked complete degradation, we would
expect proteolysis of the substrates up to the first disulfide bridge
and the accumulation of the remainder of the polypeptide chain.
However, no partially degraded substrate proteins could be detected
(Fig. 2, B and D). Together, these results
suggest that single cross-links within a substrate protein do not
affect degradation by the proteasome and that the degradation channel
through the proteasome can tolerate at least one loop in a polypeptide
chain.
Residual Structure Retards Translocation of Unfolded
Polypeptide--
Next, we tested how much steric bulk in the substrate
protein can be tolerated by the proteasomal degradation channel. For this purpose, we increased the number of disulfide bonds in barnase. As
substrates were forced to retain more residual structure during degradation, both the rates and extent of degradation decreased.
In a sequentially degraded substrate, the amount of steric bulk
introduced by disulfide bridges depends on the location of the
cross-links within the polypeptide chain. We analyzed three different
mutants containing two disulfide bridges. In two mutants, Cys43-Cys80/Cys70-Cys92
and
Cys70-Cys92/Cys85-Cys102,
the first cysteine in the amino acid sequence forms a cross-link with
the third cysteine, and the second cysteine forms a cross-link with the
fourth cysteine. In both of these mutants, the cysteine residues are
spaced so that the second cross-link does not introduce a new loop into
the polypeptide chain during sequential degradation from the N terminus
(Fig. 1C). When these proteins are degraded from their N
termini, three strands of the polypeptide chain have to pass through
the degradation channel simultaneously. Degradation rates of
Cys43-Cys80/Cys70-Cys92
and
Cys70-Cys92/Cys85-Cys102
were similar to those of substrates lacking disulfide bridges (Fig. 2
and data not shown).
In a third mutant,
Cys43-Cys80/Cys85-Cys102,
the first two cysteine residues in the polypeptide chain cross-link
with each other, and the third and fourth cysteine cross-link with each
other. In this mutant, the two disulfide bridges introduce separate
loops into the polypeptide. Both loops have to pass through the
degradation channel simultaneously during sequential degradation from
the N terminus (Fig. 1C). The cross-links introduced in this
mutant reduced the degradation rate to a small but reproducible extent (Fig. 2F). Introduction of a third disulfide bridge to
create the mutant
Cys43-Cys80/Cys70-Cys92/Cys85-Cys102
reduced degradation rates further (Fig. 2F). In addition,
the extent of degradation was reduced to ~60% of that of a substrate lacking cross-links. For all proteins, reducing the disulfide bridges
with DTT restored the rates and extent of degradation to that of
substrates lacking cysteine residues (Fig. 2E). It is
unlikely that the disulfide bridges affected the ubiquitination step
because the ubiquitination sites are far away from the folded barnase
domain and none of the single disulfide bridges affected degradation
(see also below).
Substrate Unfolding Is Not Rate-determining for
Degradation--
Disulfide bridges can affect the stability of the
folded substrate protein against global unfolding (40). Thus, the
inhibition of degradation induced by the cross-links could be caused by
the stabilization of the native protein against unfolding rather than by the residual structure in denatured barnase. We could differentiate between these two cases by introducing an additional destabilizing mutation in the protein containing three disulfide bridges. The Ile25 Disulfide Bonds Remain Intact during Degradation--
The
degradation of disulfide cross-linked substrates could also occur if
the proteasome were able to break disulfide bridges during degradation.
Degradation of substrates with multiple disulfide bridges would then be
delayed because of the time it takes to break multiple cross-links. To
test for this possibility, we compared the sizes of end products
produced when the C-terminal DHFR domain of the substrate proteins was
stabilized by ligand binding. Methotrexate binding stabilizes DHFR
against unfolding and protects it from proteolysis by the proteasome
(15). Stabilization of the DHFR domain allows degradation of the
N-terminal portion of the substrate including part of the barnase
domain. Degradation stops at a point in the polypeptide chain that is
~90 amino acids upstream of the DHFR domain (17) (Fig.
3B, lane 2). The
undegraded 90-amino acid tail must stretch from the proteolytic sites
to the entrance to the degradation channel where the folded DHFR domain
becomes stuck. All the residues involved in cross-links are contained within this tail. When the structure of the undegraded tail becomes restricted by cross-links, more than 90 amino acids may be required to
bridge the distance between proteolytic sites and the entrance to the
degradation channel (Fig. 3A). Thus, intact disulfide
bridges in the barnase domain could cause the accumulation of
degradation products with longer undegraded tails when DHFR is
stabilized. This is indeed what we observed. As increasing amounts of
disulfide bridges are introduced into the substrate protein, the
mobility of the degradation end product in SDS-PAGE decreases (Fig.
3B). For the constructs containing two or three disulfide
bridges, no or only very little degradation product of the size found
for precursors lacking disulfide bridges can be detected (Fig.
3B, compare lanes 8 and 9 with
lane 2). This result indicates that disulfide formation was
complete and that the cross-links are maintained throughout the
degradation reaction. When disulfide bonds were reduced before
degradation, the end products of degradation all showed the same
mobility on SDS-PAGE as the substrate lacking cysteine residues (data
not shown). Together these results show that the proteasome does not
reduce the disulfide bonds during degradation. In addition, the
findings demonstrate that disulfide bond formation did not interfere
with proteasome targeting because all substrate proteins were processed
irrespective of the number of disulfide bridges.
Can multiple strands of a polypeptide chain pass through the
degradation channel in the proteasome simultaneously? Crystal structures of the yeast proteasome core particle in complex with the
caps show that the axial pore has a diameter of ~13 Å (11, 12, 14).
The degradation channel in the archebacterial proteasome has
restrictions that are smaller than 20 Å as judged by the crystal structure (6) and the observation that a gold particle with a diameter
of ~ 20Å attached to a substrate protein could not enter the
archebacterial proteasome (42). These size restrictions are presumably
the reason that even small folded proteins such as DHFR cannot be
degraded without prior unfolding (15, 17). Three extended polypeptide
chains packed against each other are expected to have diameters in the
range of 13-20 Å. We found that forcing three polypeptide chains to
pass through the degradation channel by introducing one or two
disulfide bridges into a substrate protein does not affect degradation
rates (Fig. 2F). In these experiments, the degradation rate
was not limited by the unfolding of the substrate protein (Fig.
2G) but presumably by substrate enzyme encounter because of
the small concentrations of both substrate and protease. Therefore, we
cannot rule out that the steric bulk introduced into the substrate
would have a small effect if translocation were rate-determining for
degradation. Increasing the amount of residual structure in the
translocating substrate protein further by positioning two disulfide
bridges appropriately or by introducing a third disulfide bridge leads
to a small but reproducible decrease in degradation rates (Fig.
2F). This result suggests that the proteasome channel is
sufficiently wide or flexible for the concurrent passage of five
polypeptide chains. A similar result was obtained for the bacterial
ATP-dependent protease ClpXP. ClpXP degrades dimeric P22
Arc repressor bearing a C-terminal SsrA tag with similar efficiencies
whether or not the two subunits are cross-linked with a disulfide
bridge (43). An example of an unrelated protein translocation pore that
allows concomitant passage of five polypeptide strands is the
mitochondrial protein import channel (36, 44).
There are several situations in which more than one polypeptide chain
may pass simultaneously through the proteasome degradation channel in
the cell. Degradation from an internal site may be responsible for the
activation of the yeast transcription factors Spt23p and Mga2p (30).
Mga2p and Spt23p are activated when degradation of their C-terminal
portions by the proteasome releases their N-terminal DNA binding and
activation domains (30). The C termini of Spt23p and Mga2p are anchored
in the endoplasmic reticulum. Therefore, processing of these
transcription factors has to begin either with an endoproteolytic
cleavage by another protease or by the insertion of a loop of the
polypeptide chain through the proteasomal degradation channel. Our
results suggest that there are no steric constraints to the insertion
of two polypetide chains into the proteasome and therefore no
structural requirement of an endoproteolytic cut. Sequential
degradation of a protein from an internal ubiquitination site appears possible.
The ability of the proteasome to degrade a protein from an internal
site may also be important for the removal of misfolded proteins.
Furthermore, a flexible degradation channel will allow the proteolysis
of proteins carrying larger modifications, such as O-linked
carbohydrates. Thus, a degradation channel that can tolerate some
steric bulk may reconcile the two opposing needs for a cellular
degradation machine that is compartmentalized to avoid aberrant
degradation yet able to handle a range of substrates of various sizes.
Another situation in which more than one polypeptide chain may pass
through the degradation channel simultaneously occurs when ubiquitin
modifications are degraded together with the protease substrate. In
yeast, the deubiquitinating enzyme Doa4 is associated with the 26 S
proteasome (45, 46). Yeast cells lacking Doa4 are significantly
depleted of ubiquitin, and genetic evidence shows that the proteasome
is at least partially responsible for the degradation of ubiquitin (45,
46). A similar situation occurs when the deubiquitinating activity is
inhibited by ubiquitin-aldehyde (47). Polyubiquitin chains are
assembled through isopeptide bonds between a lysine side chain in the
substrate or a ubiquitin moiety already attached to the substrate and
the C-terminal carboxyl group of the next ubiquitin. Therefore,
sequential degradation of a substrate protein without prior release of
the ubiquitin moieties would require several polypeptide chains to pass
through the degradation channel simultaneously.
Finally, our results may also have implications on the conformation of
the polypeptide chain during translocation. When a protease-resistant
domain stops the sequential degradation of a multidomain protein, the
last proteolytic cleavage occurs some 90 amino acids for the beginning
of the resistant domain (17). In a fully extended conformation, a
90-amino acid polypeptide is longer than would be required to bridge
the distance from the entrance of the degradation channel to the
proteolytic sites. One possible explanation for such a long undegraded
chain is that the unfolded substrate protein is pushed through the
proteasome channel from the entrance. The protein then fills up the
degradation channel until the front end is pushed into catalytic
chamber. An alternative explanation would be that polypeptide chain
follows a defined, if complex, path from the regulatory caps to the
catalytic sites of the
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-subunits and seven different
-subunits. The subunits are arranged in four heptameric rings, which
are stacked on top of each other to form a cylindrical particle. The
rings form a central
-chamber and two
-chambers, one at
each end of the particle (2). The proteolytic sites are located
in the
-chamber and are accessible only through a central channel
that runs along the long axis of the particle. The channel has narrow
constrictions at the entrance and exit of the
-chamber (2). In the
isolated yeast core particle, the entrance to the degradation channel
is blocked by the N termini of the
-subunits (7). The channel opens
when the regulatory caps bind to the core (12). The caps consist of 17 subunits, six of which have ATPase activity, and contact the core
particle through the ATPase subunits (13, 14).
B
(19-21) and for
cyclins (22-24). Analogous to the results from model protein studies
(17), it seems likely that these proteins will be sequentially degraded
from their N termini. However, some proteasome substrates are
ubiquitinated on internal sites. Examples are NF
B (25-27), SnoN
(28), p27Kip1 (29), and Spt23p and Mga2p (30,
31). Are these proteins also degraded from their ends, or can
degradation begin from the internal ubiquitination site with the
formation of a loop that is fed into the proteasomal degradation
channel? This question is particularly pertinent for the activation of
the yeast transcription factors Spt23p and Mga2p by the proteasome (30,
31). These transcription factors are anchored to membranes through
their C termini. During activation, the proteasome degrades the
C-terminal part of the transcription factors to release an N-terminal
fragment (30, 31). Because the C termini of the transcription factors are blocked by the membrane and the N termini are released intact, degradation must begin from the middle of the precursor proteins.
![]()
MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-strands within the five-stranded antiparallel
-sheet of barnase (36) (Fig. 1B). The structures of
barnase proteins containing these cross-links were determined by x-ray
crystallography and found to be almost identical to that of wild-type
barnase (37). We also constructed substrate proteins containing all
combinations of two and three disulfide bridges.
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (27K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Schematic representations of the substrate
protein. A, linear representation of substrate
construct. The N-terminal ubiquitin domain is cleaved
immediately in reticulocyte lysate. B,
barnase domain depicted in a wire diagram.
-Helices are
shown as cylinders,
-strands as arrows.
Disulfide bridges are drawn in gray and labeled with the
positions of the participating cysteine residues. MTX,
methotrexate. C, the residual structure introduced into
barnase by two disulfide bridges at different positions when the
protein is fully extended from its termini.

View larger version (38K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Only extensive cross-linking of substrate
proteins inhibits their degradation by the proteasome.
A-D, autoradiograms of SDS-PAGE gels with degradation
assays of a substrate protein without disulfide bridges and a substrate
protein with three disulfide bridges. A and B,
substrate without disulfide bridges. C and D,
substrate containing three pairs of Cys residues able to form disulfide
bridges upon oxidation
(Cys43-Cys80/Cys70-Cys92/Cys85-Cys102).
The substrate proteins were either reduced with DTT (A, C)
or oxidized with ferricyanide (B, D) before the beginning of
the assay. The total lane (T) contains the untreated
ubiquitin-fusion protein (marked by arrowhead) produced in a
cell-free E. coli translation system. In the zero time lane
the N-terminal ubiquitin tag has been completely removed (marked
by arrow) during the preincubation in ATP-depleted reticulocyte
lysate. E, quantification of degradation assays of substrate
proteins with no (
, no disulfide), one (
,
Cys43-Cys80), two (
,
Cys43-Cys80/Cys70-Cys92;
,
Cys43-Cys80/Cys85-Cys102),
and three (
,
Cys43-Cys80/Cys70-Cys92/Cys85-Cys102)
disulfide bridges after reduction with DTT. F, degradation
of the same substrate proteins as in E after oxidation with
ferricyanide. G, substrate unfolding is not rate-determining
for degradation. Destabilizing the barnase domain in a substrate
protein containing three disulfide bridges by the mutation
Ile25
Ala does not affect degradation rates.
,
substrate lacking disulfide bridges, reduced;
, substrate with three
disulfide bridges, oxidized;
, substrate with three disulfide
bridges and the destabilizing mutation Ile25
Ala,
reduced;
, substrate with three disulfide bridges and the
destabilizing mutation Ile25
Ala, oxidized.
Ala mutation destabilizes barnase by 3.5 kcal/mol
and accelerates unfolding rates to a similar extent (Ref. 41 and data
not shown). The mutation did not accelerate degradation of the
substrate containing three disulfide bridges, independently of whether
these disulfide bridges were formed or not (Fig. 2G). This
result suggests that the decreased degradation of the triple disulfide
mutant is not due to any stabilization of the native state. Instead,
the degradation is presumably inhibited by the residual structure in
the unfolded substrate exerting steric hindrance on the translocation
of the polypeptide.

View larger version (37K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
Effect of disulfide bridge cross-links on the
size of partial degradation products. A, proposed
conformation of partially degraded substrate proteins in the absence
and presence of cross-links. Partial degradation occurs when the
C-terminal DHFR domain of the substrate is stabilized against unfolding
with methotrexate. Methotrexate-stabilized DHFR is shown in
black, and barnase is shown in gray.
B, autoradiogram of an SDS-PAGE gel with degradation
reactions of substrate proteins whose DHFR domain is stabilized against
unfolding and degradation by methotrexate binding. The substrate
proteins differ in the number and position of disulfide bridges. The
locations of the cross-links are indicated at the top of
each lane. Oxidized proteins were degraded in reticulocyte lysate at
25 °C for 2~3 h. sub indicates the actual
deubiquitinated substrate; sub + Ub, uncleaved
ubiquitin fusion protein and monoubiquitinated species; sub + Ubn, polyubiquitinated protein; deg,
degradation end product; mw, molecular weight markers.
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-rings. Our results appear to rule out the
first scenario because that scenario predicts that cross-links in the polypeptide chain do not affect the length of the undegraded tail.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
We are grateful to Kevin Ratliff for performing the SDSM expert technical assistance and Dr. A. Varshavsky for providing the N-end degradation signals.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* This work as supported by CAREER award MCB-9875857 from the National Science Foundation.The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Biochemistry,
Molecular Biology, and Cell Biology, Northwestern University, 2153 Sheridan Rd., Evanston, IL 60208-3500. Tel.: 847-467-3570; Fax:
847-467-6489; E-mail: matouschek@northwestern.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, June 21, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M204750200
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviations used are: DHFR, dihydrofolate reductase; SDSM, 4-acetamido-4'-maleimidylstilbene-2,2'-disulfonic acid; DTT, dithiothreitol.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. |
Wickner, S.,
Maurizi, M. R.,
and Gottesman, S.
(1999)
Science
286,
1888-1893 |
| 2. | Baumeister, W., Walz, J., Zühl, F., and Seemüller, E. (1998) Cell 92, 367-380[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 3. | Laney, J. D., and Hochstrasser, M. (1999) Cell 97, 427-430[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 4. | Sherman, M. Y., and Goldberg, A. L. (2001) Neuron 29, 15-32[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 5. | Ciechanover, A. (1998) EMBO J. 17, 7151-7160[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 6. |
Lowe, J.,
Stock, D.,
Jap, B.,
Zwickl, P.,
Baumeister, W.,
and Huber, R.
(1995)
Science
268,
533-539 |
| 7. | Groll, M., Ditzel, L., Lowe, J., Stock, D., Bochtler, M., Bartunik, H. D., and Huber, R. (1997) Nature 386, 463-471[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 8. | Peters, J. M., Cejka, Z., Harris, J. R., Kleinschmidt, J. A., and Baumeister, W. (1993) J. Mol. Biol. 234, 932-937[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 9. | Yoshimura, T., Kameyama, K., Takagi, T., Ikai, A., Tokunaga, F., Koide, T., Tanahashi, N., Tamura, T., Cejka, Z., Baumeister, W., Tanaka, K., and Ichihara, A. (1993) J. Struct. Biol. 111, 200-211[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 10. | Walz, J., Erdmann, A., Kania, M., Typke, D., Koster, A. J., and Baumeister, W. (1998) J. Struct. Biol. 121, 19-29[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 11. | Whitby, F. G., Masters, E. I., Kramer, L., Knowlton, J. R., Yao, Y., Wang, C. C., and Hill, C. P. (2000) Nature 408, 115-120[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 12. | Groll, M., Bajorek, M., Kohler, A., Moroder, L., Rubin, D. M., Huber, R., Glickman, M. H., and Finley, D. (2000) Nat. Struct. Biol. 7, 1062-1067[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 13. | Glickman, M. H., Rubin, D. M., Coux, O., Wefes, I., Pfeifer, G., Cjeka, Z., Baumeister, W., Fried, V. A., and Finley, D. (1998) Cell 94, 615-623[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 14. | Köhler, A., Cascio, P., Leggett, D. S., Woo, K. M., Goldberg, A. L., and Finley, D. (2001) Mol. Cell 7, 1143-1152[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 15. |
Johnston, J. A.,
Johnson, E. S.,
Waller, P. R. H.,
and Varshavsky, A.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
8172-8178 |
| 16. | Braun, B. C., Glickman, M., Kraft, R., Dahlmann, B., Kloetzel, P. M., Finley, D., and Schmidt, M. (1999) Nat. Cell Biol. 1, 221-226[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 17. | Lee, C., Schwartz, M. P., Prakash, S., Iwakura, M., and Matouschek, A. (2001) Mol. Cell 7, 627-637[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 18. |
Varshavsky, A.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
93,
12142-12149 |
| 19. |
Scherer, D. C.,
Brockman, J. A.,
Chen, Z.,
Maniatis, T.,
and Ballard, D. W.
(1995)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
92,
11259-11263 |
| 20. | Rodriguez, M. S., Wright, J., Thompson, J., Thomas, D., Baleux, F., Virelizier, J. L., Hay, R. T., and Arenzana-Seisdedos, F. (1996) Oncogene 12, 2425-2435[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 21. | Karin, M., and Ben-Neriah, Y. (2000) Annu. Rev. Immunol. 18, 621-663[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 22. | Glotzer, M., Murray, A. W., and Kirschner, M. W. (1991) Nature 349, 132-138[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 23. | King, R. W., Glotzer, M., and Kirschner, M. W. (1996) Mol. Biol. Cell 7, 1343-1357[Abstract] |
| 24. | Yamano, H., Tsurumi, C., Gannon, J., and Hunt, T. (1998) EMBO J. 17, 5670-5678[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 25. | Fan, C. M., and Maniatis, T. (1991) Nature 354, 395-398[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 26. |
Orian, A.,
Schwartz, A. L.,
Israel, A.,
Whiteside, S.,
Kahana, C.,
and Ciechanover, A.
(1999)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19,
3664-3673 |
| 27. | Orian, A., Gonen, H., Bercovich, B., Fajerman, I., Eytan, E., Israel, A., Mercurio, F., Iwai, K., Schwartz, A. L., and Ciechanover, A. (2000) EMBO J. 19, 2580-2591[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 28. |
Stroschein, S. L.,
Bonni, S.,
Wrana, J. L.,
and Luo, K.
(2001)
Genes Dev.
15,
2822-2836 |
| 29. |
Shirane, M.,
Harumiya, Y.,
Ishida, N.,
Hirai, A.,
Miyamoto, C.,
Hatakeyama, S.,
Nakayama, K.,
and Kitagawa, M.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
13886-13893 |
| 30. | Hoppe, T., Matuschewski, K., Rape, M., Schlenker, S., Ulrich, H. D., and Jentsch, S. (2000) Cell 102, 577-586[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 31. | Rape, M., Hoppe, T., Gorr, I., Kalocay, M., Richly, H., and Jentsch, S. (2001) Cell 107, 667-677[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 32. | Hartley, R. W. (1975) Biochemistry 14, 2367-2370[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 33. | Rood, J. I., Laird, A. J., and Williams, J. W. (1980) Gene (Amst.) 8, 255-265[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 34. | Varshavsky, A. (1992) Cell 69, 725-735[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 35. | Bachmair, A., and Varshavsky, A. (1989) Cell 56, 1019-1032[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 36. |
Schwartz, M. P.,
Huang, S.,
and Matouschek, A.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
12759-12764 |
| 37. | Clarke, J., Hendrick, K., and Fersht, A. R. (1995) J. Mol. Biol. 253, 493-504[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 38. |
Gonda, D. K.,
Bachmair, A.,
Wunning, I.,
Tobias, J. W.,
Lane, W. S.,
and Varshavsky, A.
(1989)
J. Biol. Chem.
264,
16700-16712 |
| 39. |
Reiss, Y.,
Kaim, D.,
and Hershko, A.
(1988)
J. Biol. Chem.
263,
2693-2698 |
| 40. | Clarke, J., and Fersht, A. R. (1993) Biochemistry 32, 4322-4329[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 41. | Serrano, L., Kellis Jr, J. T., Cann, P., Matouschek, A., and Fersht, A. R. (1992) J. Mol. Biol. 224, 783-804[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 42. | Wenzel, T., and Baumeister, W. (1995) Nat. Struct. Biol. 2, 199-204[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 43. | Burton, R. E., Siddiqui, S. M., Kim, Y. I., Baker, T. A., and Sauer, R. T. (2001) EMBO J. 20, 3092-3100[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 44. |
Schwartz, M. P.,
and Matouschek, A.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
13086-13090 |
| 45. |
Swaminathan, S.,
Amerik, A. Y.,
and Hochstrasser, M.
(1999)
Mol. Biol. Cell
10,
2583-2594 |
| 46. |
Amerik, A. Y.,
Nowak, J.,
Swaminathan, S.,
and Hochstrasser, M.
(2000)
Mol. Biol. Cell
11,
3365-3380 |
| 47. | Thrower, J. S., Hoffman, L., Rechsteiner, M., and Pickart, C. M. (2000) EMBO J. 19, 94-102[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C. LEIDHOLD and W. VOOS Chaperones and Proteases Guardians of Protein Integrity in Eukaryotic Organelles Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., October 1, 2007; 1113(1): 72 - 86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Okuno, K. Yamanaka, and T. Ogura An AAA protease FtsH can initiate proteolysis from internal sites of a model substrate, apo-flavodoxin Genes Cells, March 1, 2006; 11(3): 261 - 268. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Luciani, C. Kesmir, M. Mishto, M. Or-Guil, and R. J. de Boer A Mathematical Model of Protein Degradation by the Proteasome Biophys. J., April 1, 2005; 88(4): 2422 - 2432. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Huyer, W. F. Piluek, Z. Fansler, S. G. Kreft, M. Hochstrasser, J. L. Brodsky, and S. Michaelis Distinct Machinery Is Required in Saccharomyces cerevisiae for the Endoplasmic Reticulum-associated Degradation of a Multispanning Membrane Protein and a Soluble Luminal Protein J. Biol. Chem., September 10, 2004; 279(37): 38369 - 38378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. M. Mandrusiak, L. K. Beitel, X. Wang, T. C. Scanlon, E. Chevalier-Larsen, D. E. Merry, and M. A. Trifiro Transglutaminase potentiates ligand-dependent proteasome dysfunction induced by polyglutamine-expanded androgen receptor Hum. Mol. Genet., July 1, 2003; 12(13): 1497 - 1506. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C.-W. Liu, M. J. Corboy, G. N. DeMartino, and P. J. Thomas Endoproteolytic Activity of the Proteasome Science, January 17, 2003; 299(5605): 408 - 411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | <