Advertisement
JBC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M410649200 on November 2, 2004

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 280, Issue 1, 317-325, January 7, 2005
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
280/1/317    most recent
M410649200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wang, X.
Right arrow Articles by Ma, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wang, X.
Right arrow Articles by Ma, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Calpain and Other Cytosolic Proteases Can Contribute to the Degradation of Retro-translocated Prion Protein in the Cytosol*

Xinhe Wang{ddagger}, Fei Wang{ddagger}, Man-Sun Sy§, and Jiyan Ma{ddagger}

From the {ddagger}Department of Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 and the §Institute of Pathology and Department of Neurosciences, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio 44120

Received for publication, September 15, 2004 , and in revised form, November 2, 2004.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
PrP, a cell surface-localized N-linked glycoprotein, is required for the pathogenesis of prion diseases. Recent studies have revealed that prion protein (PrP) becomes neurotoxic and prone to aggregation when it is in the cytosol, suggesting that cytosolic PrP may play a role in the pathogenesis of prion disease. Retro-translocation of PrP from the endoplasmic reticulum to the cytosol for proteasome degradation offers a natural route for PrP to enter the cytosol, but whether PrP is subject to retrotranslocation is controversial. In this study, we investigated the metabolism of endogenous wild-type PrP in several cell lines and in primary mouse cortical neurons. Our results suggest that a portion of the endogenous wild-type PrP is retro-translocated to the cytosol and degraded by the proteasome. Moreover, we also found that calpain and other cytosolic proteases could degrade PrP in the cytosol when the proteasome activity is compromised. These results provide the foundation for the hypothesis that cytosolic PrP may be involved in the pathogenesis of prion disease.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Prion diseases are a unique group of neurodegenerative disorders that can be sporadic, dominantly inheritable, or infectious. The "protein-only" model postulates that PrPSc, the misfolded form of normal prion protein (PrPC), is the infectious agent that can convert PrPC to PrPSc in a self-templated reaction (1). Indeed, PrPSc is the major component of the infectious agent and is found only in infected tissues (1, 2). The central role of PrP in the transmission of prion diseases is supported by a variety of experimental evidence (1, 3, 4).

Aside from the infectious property of PrP, extensive efforts have focused on elucidating the mechanism of neurodegeneration in prion disease (5, 6). Accumulated evidence revealed the contribution of normal host PrPC to the neurodegenerative process in prion disease. Using a neurografting technique, it has been shown that PrPSc itself is not toxic to neurons that do not express PrPC (7). This conclusion is further supported by a recent study using conditional PrP knockout mice. Despite continuous accumulation of PrPSc in these mouse brains, depletion of PrPC in neurons after prion infection not only stops the development of neurodegeneration but also reverses the neuropathology (8). Because PrPC is expressed abundantly in the brains of all mammals (9, 10), the neurotoxic form of PrP has to be an abnormal form of host PrPC. Several forms of PrP have been implicated as the neurotoxic species in prion diseases, including transmembrane PrP (11, 12), cross-linked PrP (13), and cytosolically localized PrP (14). Further investigation of these candidates is essential to identify which form of PrP is responsible for the neurodegeneration in prion disease or whether different neurotoxic PrP forms are responsible for different types of prion disease.

Expression of PrP in the cytosol, instead of its normal plasma membrane-associated form, has been shown to cause rapid and extensive degeneration of cerebellar granular neurons in transgenic mice (14). This neuropathological phenotype is similar to that of transgenic mice expressing a disease-associated PrP mutant (15). Moreover, in cell culture experiments, a significant portion of PrP in the reducing cytosolic environment gains a conformation similar to PrPSc, being highly aggregated with a signature proteinase K-resistant pattern (16, 17). This observation is also consistent with results from biochemical studies of PrP folding, in which reducing conditions can fold recombinant PrP into an aggregated, proteinase K-resistant, amyloidogenic conformation (18–20). Based on these findings, we have proposed that cytosolic PrP is the neurotoxic species in prion disease, and it may also play a role in the initial formation of the PrPSc conformation in sporadic and inherited prion diseases.

As a glycosylphosphatidylinositol-anchored protein, PrP is co-translationally translocated into the lumen of endoplasmic reticulum (ER).1 Thereafter, it travels within the secretory pathway and is not exposed to the reducing environment in the cytosol (21). Retro-translocation of misfolded PrP from the ER to the cytosol for proteasomal degradation has been proposed as a natural route for PrP to enter the cytosol. But whether PrP is subject to retro-translocation and proteasome degradation has been controversial (22, 23). Accumulation of wild-type and mutant PrP during proteasome inhibition has been observed in various cell lines and in human primary neurons (24–28). Because many of these studies used transfected cells expressing PrP under the control of cytomegalovirus promoter, a recent study argued that the accumulation of PrP results from an artifact of increased expression of the cytomegalovirus promoter under proteasome inhibition (29).

Given the central role of PrP retro-translocation to the cytosolic PrP hypothesis, we performed a detailed analysis of endogenous wild-type PrP in several cell lines and in primary mouse neurons. We found that a portion of PrP is retro-translocated to the cytosol for degradation by the proteasome. Moreover, we also found that other cytosolic proteases can contribute to the degradation of retro-translocated PrP when proteasome activity is compromised. These results support the model that cytosolic PrP may be involved in the pathogenesis of prion disease.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Cell Lines and Cell Culture—PC3M is a metastatic subline of PC3 human prostate cancer cell line (30). PC3M cells were cultured in RPMI 1640 with 10% fetal bovine serum, 10 mM HEPES, pH 7.2, 2 mM glutamine, and penicillin-streptomycin. DU145 cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium with 10% fetal bovine serum, 10 mM HEPES, pH 7.2, 2 mM glutamine, and penicillin-streptomycin. NT2 cells were cultured in Opti-MEM with 5% fetal bovine serum, and penicillin-streptomycin. All of the cell culture media and reagents were purchased from Invitrogen.

Treatment of Cells and Immunoblot Analysis—All of the cells used for inhibitor analyses were cultured in 6-well tissue culture plates. The cells were cultured in a humidified incubator at 37 °C with 5% CO2. After cells reached 90% confluence, the culture media were replaced with fresh media containing various inhibitors. The cultures were continued in the CO2 cell culture incubator at 37 °C for the time indicated. The inhibitors used in this study were: MG132 (Biomol Research Laboratory), epoxomicin (Biomol Research Laboratory), lactacystin (EMD Biosciences, Calbiochem), MDL28170(Sigma), NH4Cl (Sigma), and cloroquine (Sigma).

After treatment with various inhibitors, cell culture media were removed, and the cells were washed once with phosphate-buffered saline and lysed on ice in a cell lysis buffer (150 mM NaCl, 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 2 mM EDTA, 0.5% Triton X-100, 0.5% sodium deoxycholate, 1x complete protease inhibitor (Roche Applied Science)). For PC3M cells, 600 µl of lysis buffer/well were used, and for all other cell types, 300 µl of lysis buffer/well were used to lyse cells. The cell lysates were disrupted on ice by passing through 26-gauge needles and stored at -20 °C. To separate soluble and insoluble fractions, 50 µl of PC3M cell lysates (100 µl for other cells) were centrifuged at 16,300 x g for 30 min at 4 °C. Supernatant was carefully transferred to a new tube, precipitated with 4 volumes of cold methanol (-20 °C), and incubated at -20 °C for more than 30 min. Pellet fraction and precipitated supernatant proteins were sonicated in SDS-PAGE sample buffer containing 5% (w/v) SDS for 10 min. After boiling for 10 min, the samples were separated in 14% SDS-PAGE (Novex Tris-glycine gel; Invitrogen) and transferred to polyvinylidene difluoride membrane for immunoblot analyses. PrP was detected by the 3F4 monoclonal anti-PrP antibody (1:4000; Signet Laboratories) except experiments using mouse brain and primarily cultured mouse cortical neurons. In those experiments, the 7A12 monoclonal anti-PrP antibody (10) was used. The monoclonal 8B4 anti-PrP antibody (10) was used to determine the presence of the N terminus in PrP. All of the blots were developed by using a peroxidase-conjugated anti-mouse IgG secondary antibody (Bio-Rad) and ECL Plus reagent (Amersham Biosciences). Quantification was performed on a Storm phosphorus imaging system (Molecular Dynamics).

To detect the signal peptide of PrP, a rabbit antibody raised against the signal peptide of PrP was used (1:1000), and the blot was developed by using a peroxidase-conjugated anti-rabbit IgG secondary antibody (Bio-Rad) and ECL Plus reagent (Amersham Biosciences).

Deglycosylation—For deglycosylation reactions, total protein from cell culture lysates or mouse brain lysates was precipitated with 4 volumes of cold methanol (-20 °C). The precipitated protein were sonicated in peptide:N-glycosidase F (PNGase F; New England Biolabs) digestion buffer or in endoglycosidase H (Endo H; New England Biolabs) digestion buffer. PNGase F or Endo H was added to the reaction mixture as indicated. Digestion was carried out at 37 °C for 1 h, and all of the proteins were precipitated again by methanol after the digestion. To ensure that the digestion reaction does not interfere with PrP migration on SDS-PAGE, the pellet fraction of MG-132-treated PC3M cell lysates was sonicated into PNGase F buffer, incubated at 37 °C for 1 h, and precipitated with methanol as well. All of the precipitated proteins were sonicated in SDS-PAGE sample buffer containing 5% (w/v) SDS for 10 min, boiled for 10 min, and separated in 14% SDS-PAGE. PrP was detected by using 3F4 or 7A12 anti-PrP antibody.

Pulse-Chase Analysis—PC3M cells were cultured in a 10-cm plate. When the cells reached 90% confluence, pulse-chase analysis was performed. The cells were incubated with labeling medium (Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium without Met and Cys; Invitrogen) for 30 min at 37 °C in a CO2 tissue culture incubator. Afterward, the media were replaced with labeling media containing Tran35S-Label (200 µCi/plate; MP Biomedicals Inc.) with or without 50 µM MG132. The pulse labeling was carried out at 37 °C in a CO2 tissue culture incubator for 6 h. The cells were washed three times with phosphate-buffered saline, and regular culture media were added in the presence or absence of 50 µM MG132. After chasing for indicated time, the cells were washed once with phosphate-buffered saline and lysed in 1 ml of lysis buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM EDTA, 0.5% Nonidet P-40, 2% SDS). To denature all proteins in the lysate, 1.5 ml of 8 M guanidinium HCl (Sigma) was added to 1 ml of lysate, and all of the proteins were precipitated with 4 volumes of cold methanol (-20 °C). Precipitated proteins were sonicated into 1 ml of DLPC buffer (4.2 mg/ml L-{alpha}-phosphatidylcholine, 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 2% sarkosyl). PrP was immunoprecipitated with 3F4 antibody and protein A-conjugated Sepharose 4B beads (Sigma). The beads were washed twice with buffer A (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM EDTA, 0.5% Triton X-100, 0.5% deoxycholate, 0.5% sarkosyl), twice with buffer B (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 500 mM NaCl, 0.1% Triton X-100, 0.05% deoxycholate), and once with buffer C (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 0.1% Triton X-100, 0.05% deoxycholate). PrP was released from the beads by boiling in SDS sample buffer for 10 min and separated on a 12% SDS-PAGE. The signals were detected and quantified by a Storm phosphorus imaging system.

Primary Mouse Cortical Neuronal Culture—Frozen mouse cortical neurons were purchased from QBM Cell Science. These neurons were cultured exactly according to the protocol supplied by the manufacturer. Neurobasal medium, L-glutamine, penicillin-streptomycin, and B27 serum-free supplements were purchased from Invitrogen as suggested by the manufacturer. These neurons were brought up and cultured for 7 days before the experiments were performed.

Subcellular Fractionation Using Iodixanol Gradient—PC3M cells were cultured in 10-cm plates and treatments were performed when cells were 90% confluent. The culture media were replaced with fresh media with or without 50 µM MG132, and the cells were incubated at 37 °C in a CO2 tissue culture incubator for 8 h. At the end of incubation, the cells were washed once in phosphate-buffered saline, scraped into 1 ml of membrane preparation buffer (8% sucrose, 20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 1 mM EDTA), and homogenized on ice. The homogenates were centrifuged at 1,000 x g for 5 min at 4 °C to remove nuclei and unbroken cells. The post-nuclear supernatant (280 µl/sample) was mixed with stock iodixanol solution (OptiPrep, Axis-Shield PoC, AS) to generate 1 ml 36% iodixanol solution, and the mixture was loaded at the bottom of an ultracentrifuge tube. A 1-ml 31% iodixanol solution and a 0.25-ml 5% iodixanol solution were loaded on top of the sample sequentially. The gradient was centrifuged at 186,000 x g for 3 h at 4 °C in a TLX Beckman bench top ultracentrifuge. 250-µl fractions were collected from the top to bottom, and proteins in all fractions were precipitated by adding 250 µl of 40% trichloroacetic acid. Precipitated proteins were sonicated in SDS-PAGE sample buffer and were used to perform immunoblot analysis. The antibodies used for the immunoblot analyses are: 3F4 anti-PrP antibody at 1:4000, anti-calnexin antibody (Stressgen) at 1:1000, and anti-Hsp70 antibody (Stressgen) at 1:5000.

RNase Protection Assay—RNase protection assay was performed as previously described (14). Human PrP cDNA was subcloned into the pBluescript SK+ vector. The PrP-pBluescript plasmid was digested with the restriction enzyme NcoI. After digestion, T7 RNA polymerase was used to generate antisense RNA probe. Human cyclophilin probe was a generous gift from Dr. Robert Costa at the University of Illinois at Chicago.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Accumulation of Unglycosylated and Aggregated PrP upon Proteasome Inhibition—To determine whether PrP is subject to retro-translocation to the cytosol for degradation by the proteasome, we analyzed endogenous wild-type PrP in a human prostate cancer cell line, PC3M. These cells express high levels of PrP that is fully glycosylated, soluble in mild detergents, and localized on the plasma membrane (Ref. 31 and data not shown). When the proteasome inhibitor MG132 was added to these cells, PrP started to accumulate. Notably, the majority of accumulated PrP is unglycosylated and insoluble with mild detergent extraction (Fig. 1A). After 8 h of proteasome inhibition, the level of soluble, fully glycosylated PrP remained about the same level as that of control cells (Fig. 1B). In contrast, the level of unglycosylated PrP increased to about 4-fold of that in control cells (Fig. 1B). After 24 h of proteasome inhibition, the level of soluble and fully glycosylated PrP was significantly decreased, presumably because of the effect of long term proteasome inhibition. However, the accumulation of unglycosylated PrP was dramatically increased (Fig. 1B), with the total unglycosylated PrP about 6-fold of that in control cells, reflecting continuous accumulation of PrP destined for proteasome degradation.



View larger version (60K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1.
Accumulation of unglycosylated and aggregated PrP upon proteasome inhibition. A, PC3M cells were treated with or without 50 µM MG132 for indicated times. Detergent cell lysates were sedimented, and PrP in the supernatant and pellet fractions was detected by immunoblot analysis with 3F4 anti-PrP antibody. Equal loading was verified by total protein stain of the blot. B, quantification of soluble fully glycosylated PrP and unglycosylated PrP in cells treated with MG132 for indicated times. The y axis represents the fold of changes after MG132 treatment with control samples set as 1-fold. These graphs represent three independent experiments. Standard deviations are reflected by error bars. C, same as in A except 8B4 antibody was used to detect PrP.

 
Because many N-terminally truncated PrP fragments are present in normal cells (32), it is possible that the accumulated PrP could be a PrP fragment instead of full-length PrP. To differentiate between these two possibilities, we performed immunoblot analysis with 8B4 monoclonal antibody (Fig. 1C). This antibody recognizes an epitope at amino acid 37–44 of PrP, which is removed in almost all N-terminally truncated PrP fragments (32, 33). In the supernatant fraction, the signal detected by 8B4 antibody was much weaker comparing to the signal detected by 3F4 antibody (comparing the supernatant fractions between panels A and C of Fig. 1), indicating that most of the soluble and fully glycosylated PrP in PC3M cells was N-terminally truncated PrP fragments. However, the PrP in the pellet fraction was clearly detected by the 8B4 antibody (Fig. 1C, pellet). The presence of 8B4 epitope indicated that the PrP accumulated upon proteasome inhibition contains full-length PrP.

Moderate Increase of Endogenous PrP mRNA Levels upon Proteasome Inhibition—To ensure that the accumulation of unglycosylated PrP is not due to an increase in PrP expression, we performed an RNase protection assay to measure the mRNA levels of PrP in PC3M cells treated with proteasome inhibitor. The probe against cyclophilin was included in the assay as an internal control for total RNA levels. Upon proteasome inhibition, we detected a small but consistent increase of PrP mRNA level. After 8 h of MG132 treatment, PrP mRNA level increased about 1.5-fold (Fig. 2). It is unlikely that this moderate increase of PrP mRNA levels could account for the accumulation of PrP upon proteasome inhibition. Increase of PrP expression should have lead to an increase of soluble and fully glycosylated PrP protein but not solely to the accumulation of unglycosylated PrP as we observed (Fig. 1). After 24 h of proteasome inhibition, the PrP mRNA level was 1.5-fold of that in untreated cells (Fig. 2), and the soluble fully glycosylated PrP protein level was much lower than that in control cells (Fig. 1B). In contrast, the accumulation of unglycosylated PrP was much higher, and the majority of the accumulated PrP was aggregated (Fig. 1; a 30-fold increase of aggregated PrP after 24 h of proteasome inhibition). It is unlikely that a mere 0.5-fold increase of PrP mRNA level can explain such a massive accumulation of unglycosylated and aggregated PrP in proteasome-inhibited cells.



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2.
Level of endogenous PrP mRNA increases upon proteasome inhibition. A, RNase protection analysis of PrP mRNA levels in PC3M cells treated with 50 µM MG132 for indicated times. Endogenous cyclophillin mRNA levels were used as an internal control. B, quantification of PrP mRNA levels treated with 50 µM MG132. The y axis represents the fold of changes after MG132 treatment with control samples set as 1-fold. Standard deviations are reflected by error bars.

 
Accumulation of Unglycosylated PrP Results from Inhibition of Its Degradation—An alternative explanation of unglycosylated and aggregated PrP accumulation would be that these PrP molecules were destined to the proteasome for degradation. To test this possibility, we performed pulse-chase analysis in PC3M cells with 3F4 anti-PrP antibody. Two pitfalls could have potentially interfered with pulse-chase analysis of retrotranslocated PrP. First, the pulse labeling generally is performed in a short time period, such as 30 min. Even with the PC3M cells that express a very high amount of endogenous wild-type PrP, only about 5% of total PrP accumulated after 4 h of continuous proteasome inhibition (Fig. 1), and only about 15% of total PrP accumulated after 8 h of proteasome inhibition. (Quantification was performed using a Storm phosphorus imaging system.) Therefore, short pulse labeling will not accumulate detectable amount of PrP molecules destined to proteosome degradation. Second, the majority of the accumulated PrP is insoluble in mild detergents (Fig. 1). Immunoprecipitation of aggregated proteins is generally inefficient, and these proteins tend to be removed during the preclear centrifugation step of immunoprecipitation. To overcome these two potential pitfalls, we pulse-labeled cell in the presence or absence of the proteasome inhibitor MG132 for 6 h and chased under the same condition for 12 or 18 h. After cell lysis, all of the proteins were denatured with 4.8 M guanidinium HCl and precipitated with methanol. A buffer used previously to solublize aggregated PrPSc (34) was used to solublize methanol-precipitated proteins. In cells treated with MG132, a band migrated at the position of unglycosylated PrP was clearly detectable after pulse labeling (Fig. 3A, indicated by an arrow). This band did not appear in the control sample that was treated with MG132, pulse-labeled, and immunoprecipitated under the same procedure except without incubation with anti-PrP antibody (data not shown), suggesting that it represents the accumulated unglycosylated PrP after proteasome inhibition. After 12 h of chase, majority of the fully glycosylated PrP were degraded in control cells (Fig. 3, A and B), consistent with previous reports that PrP is a short-lived protein (34, 35). In MG132-treated cells, the majority of the fully glycosylated PrP was also turned over after 12 h of chase (Fig. 3A, indicated by a bracket). In contrast, the portion of accumulated unglycosylated PrP in the same MG132-treated samples remained even after 18 h chase (Fig. 3A, bands indicated by a arrow). Taken together, these results suggest that the accumulation of unglycosylated PrP results from the inhibition of proteasome degradation rather than increased expression. Moreover, the normal turnover rate of fully glycosylated PrP in MG132-treated cells indicated that proteasome inhibition did not change the metabolism of PrP molecules going through the secretory pathway as previously reported (29).



View larger version (45K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3.
The accumulation of unglycosylated PrP upon proteasome inhibition results from the reduction of its degradation. A, PC3M cells were pulse-labeled with Tran35S-Label and chased in the presence or absence of 50 µM MG132 for the time indicated. The bracket indicates fully glycosylated PrP. The arrow indicates the unglycosylated PrP accumulated upon proteasome inhibition. B, quantification of the degradation rates of fully glycosylated PrP in the presence or absence of MG132, and unglycosylated PrP accumulated in the presence of MG132. The y axis represents the percentage of PrP remained after different chase periods.

 
Cytosolic Localization of Accumulated PrP upon Proteasome Inhibition—In mammalian cells, signal peptides are generally very efficient in directing the co-translational translocation of protein into the ER lumen. If the increase of PrP levels upon proteasome inhibition results from increasing PrP expression, accumulated PrP, even if aggregated, should be within the secretory pathway and associated with membrane. To determine the subcellular localization of accumulated PrP, we used a discontinuous iodixanol gradient to separate membrane fractions from cytosolic proteins. In this gradient, membrane fractions will flow to the top of the gradient, whereas cytosolic protein will remain in the sample-loading region. The successful separation of membrane and cytosolic fractions was confirmed by the enrichment of endogenous PrP and a membrane-bound chaperone, calnexin, in the top three fractions of the gradient (Fig 4A, Control). The cytosolic chaperone protein Hsp70 was used to identify fractions containing cytosolic proteins (the bottom five fractions). A very small amount of Hsp70 co-migrated with the membrane fraction (Fig. 4A, fraction 2), reflecting its association with membrane-bound co-chaperones (as reviewed in Ref. 36). When the homogenate from cells treated with MG132 was applied to the same gradient, the fully glycosylated and membrane-bound PrP still migrated to the top three fractions as well as calnexin (Fig. 4B). However, accumulated unglycosylated PrP migrated in the same fractions as cytosolic chaperone Hsp70, demonstrating that these PrP molecules are localized in the cytosol (Fig. 4iB). Cytosolic accumulation of unglycosylated PrP further supports that these PrP molecules are destined to the proteasome for degradation.



View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 4.
Cytosolic localization of PrP accumulated upon proteasome inhibition. Homogenates of PC3M cells treated with (A) or without (B) 50 µM MG132 for 8 h were loaded on a discontinuous iodixanol gradient. After centrifugation, 250-µl fractions were collected from top to the bottom of the gradient. The presence of PrP, calnexin (CNX), or Hsp70 proteins in all nine fractions as indicated was determined by immunoblot analyses with antibodies against PrP, calnexin, and Hsp70.

 
Accumulated PrP Has Been Proteolytically Processed in the ER—Cytosolic accumulated PrP could result from PrP molecules that has been in the lumen of ER, misfolded, and retrotranslocated. Alternatively, it may also come from PrP molecules that never enter the ER because of some aberrant effects of proteasome inhibition. To differentiate between these two possibilities, we took advantage of the fact that two proteolytic cleavages occur when PrP is in the lumen of ER, that is, cleavage of the N-terminal 22-amino acid signal peptide and cleavage of the C-terminal 22 amino acids for addition of the glycosylphosphatidylinositol anchor (21). Had accumulated PrP been in the lumen of ER, it should be through all these modifications and have the same molecular weight as that of deglycosylated wild-type PrP that has traveled through ER to the cell surface. To compare the size of accumulated PrP with deglycosylated PrP, we included a control N2A cell line (moPrP cell line, N2A cells stably transfected with mouse PrP carrying a 3F4 epitope) that has been used in previous studies (14, 37). PrP from moPrP cells migrates with three distinct bands on SDS-PAGE, likely representing unglycosylated, mono-core-glycosylated, or di-core-glycosylated PrP (14). As we showed in previous study (14), PrP from moPrP cells was sensitive to both Endo H and PNGase F digestions (Fig. 5A, compare lanes 2, 4, and 6), typical of core-glycosylated N-linked oligosaccharides. PrP from PC3M cells was sensitive to PNGase F digestion but resistant to Endo H digestion (Fig. 5A, compare lanes 1, 3, and 5), characteristic of N-linked oligosaccharides being modified in the Golgi complex. Smaller molecular mass bands (Fig. 5A, lane 5) represented the N-terminal truncated PrP fragments as showed in Fig. 1C. Notably, the accumulated PrP from PC3M cells treated with proteasome inhibitor migrated exactly to the same position on SDS-PAGE as deglycosylated PrP from both PC3M and MoPrP cells (Fig. 5A, compare lane 7 with lanes 4–6).



View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 5.
Co-migration of accumulated PrP with deglycosylated PrP. A, PC3M (P) and MoPrP (M) cell lysates were digested with or without Endo H or PNGase F as indicated. Lane 7 is the pellet fraction of PC3M cells treated with 50 µM MG132 for 8 h. PrP was detected by immunoblot analysis with 3F4 anti-PrP antibody. B, mouse brain lysates were digested with Endo H or PNGase F as indicated. Lane 4 is the pellet fraction of PC3M cells treated with 50 µM MG132 for 8 h. PrP was detected by 7A12 anti-PrP antibody.

 
To rule out the possibility that some cell culture-specific post-translational modifications may interfere with PrP migration, we also compared the size of accumulated PrP with deglycosylated PrP from wild-type mouse brain lysates. As expected, PrP from mouse brain was resistant to Endo H digestion but was sensitive to PNGase F digestion (Fig. 5B, lanes 1–3). Importantly, the accumulated PrP (Fig. 5B, lane 4) migrated to the same position as deglycosylated PrP from mouse brain. The fact that accumulated PrP and deglycosylated PrP co-migrate at the exact same position on SDS-PAGE suggests that the PrP accumulated during proteasome inhibition has been processed in the ER.

Our second approach to investigate whether the accumulated PrP is retro-translocated from the ER to the cytosol utilized an antibody raised against the signal peptide region of PrP (29). This antibody has been shown to recognize the signal peptide of both mouse and human PrP (28, 29). As a positive control for this anti-signal peptide antibody, we included a 3T3 cells that was stably transfected with wild-type mouse PrP with 3F4 epitope (PrP-3T3). As previously reported (29), a portion of accumulated PrP from proteasome inhibited PrP-3T3 cells contains the N-terminal signal peptide (data not shown). We compared the pellet fractions of detergent lysates of PC3M or PrP-3T3 cells treated with or without MG132 to determine whether the signal peptide of accumulated PrP in PC3M cells has been removed. To ensure the detection of signal peptide antibody was not interfered by the amount of PrP, we overloaded the samples from the PC3M cells while underloading samples from PrP-3T3 cells. Two blots with exactly the same samples were probed with either 3F4 anti-PrP antibody or the anti-signal peptide antibody. As expected, PrP accumulated in the pellet fraction in both PC3M cells and the stable PrP-3T3 cells upon proteasome inhibition (Fig. 6, anti-PrP antibody). However, accumulated PrP in MG132-treated PrP-3T3 cells migrated as two separate bands. The upper band was recognized by the anti-signal peptide antibody, suggesting this portion of accumulated PrP contained the signal peptide (Fig. 6, open arrow labeled ssPrP). The accumulated PrP from MG132-treated PC3M cells migrated as a single band to the position similar to the lower band of PrP from MG132-treated PrP-3T3 cells (Fig. 6, solid arrow labeled PrP). Importantly, the anti-signal peptide antibody did not recognize accumulated PrP from PC3M cells even after prolonged exposure (Fig. 6, anti-signal peptide antibody). This result is in accordance with our previous finding that the accumulated PrP from PC3M cells has been proteolytically processed in the lumen of ER. In addition, the fact that the fast migrating species of accumulated PrP in PrP-3T3 cells did not contain the signal peptide (Fig. 6, solid arrow) suggests that this portion of PrP from this stably transfected cell line has also been processed in the lumen of ER. All together, these results suggest that the accumulated PrP has been translocated into the ER, processed, retro-translocated to the cytosol and accumulated in the cytosol when the proteasome is inhibited.



View larger version (48K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 6.
N-terminal signal peptide is cleaved in PrP accumulated upon proteasome inhibition. PC3M cells (P) or PrP-3T3 cells (3T3) were treated with or without MG132 as indicated. Pellet fractions of detergent cell lysates were separated on one SDS-PAGE and transferred to a polyvinylidene difluoride membrane. The blot was cut into two parts with exactly the same contents as indicated. PrP was detected by 3F4 anti-PrP antibody. The presence of N-terminal signal peptide was detected by anti-signal peptide antibody. The open arrow indicates the portion of PrP with the signal peptide (ssPrP). The solid arrow indicates the portion of PrP without the signal peptide (PrP).

 
Accumulation of PrP in Different Cell Lines or Treated with Different Proteasome Inhibitors—To rule out the possibility that retro-translocation of PrP is a specific phenomenon of PC3M cell line, we tested two additional cell lines that express detectable levels of endogenous wild-type PrP. DU145 is a human prostate tumor cell line, and NT2 is a human teratocarcinoma cell line that has the characteristics of neuronal progenitor cells (38). The difference in the migration patterns of the soluble fully glycosylated PrP from these two cell lines represents the different modifications of N-linked oligosaccharides of PrP in these two cell lines (Fig. 7). Just as in PC3M cells, the accumulation of unglycosylated PrP in these two cell lines was detectable after 4 h of MG132 treatment and reached a higher level after 8 h of treatment (Fig. 7), and a significant portion of these accumulated PrP was aggregated in mild detergents.



View larger version (86K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 7.
Accumulation of unglycosylated PrP in different cell lines after proteasome inhibition. DU145 cells and NT2 cells were treated with 50 µM MG132 for the indicated times. Detergent cell lysates were sedimented, and PrP in the supernatant and pellet fractions were detected by 3F4 anti-PrP antibody. The arrows indicate the accumulation of unglycosylated PrP. The asterisk indicates a nonspecific band.

 
To differentiate whether the accumulation of PrP is truly due to the effect of proteasome inhibition or to an aberrant effect of MG132, we tested several specific proteasome inhibitors. We treated PC3M cells with 10 µM epoxomicin, 10 µM lactacystin, or 50 µM MG132 for 8 h, and accumulation of unglycosylated PrP in the pellet fraction was clearly detected in cells treated with all proteasome inhibitors but not in untreated cells (Fig. 8). Accumulation of PrP in different cell lines and with treatment of different proteasome inhibitors suggests that retrotranslocation of PrP to the cytosol for proteasome degradation is a general phenomenon and not an artifact of a particular cell line or a particular proteasome inhibitor.



View larger version (79K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 8.
Accumulation of PrP in cells treated with different proteasome inhibitors. PC3M cells were treated with 10 µM epoxomicin, 10 µM lactacystin, or 50 µM MG132 as indicated for 8 h. The detergent cell lysates were sedimented, and PrP in pellet or supernatant fractions was detected by 3F4 anti-PrP antibody. The arrow indicates the accumulation of unglycosylated PrP. Equal loading was verified by total protein stain of the blot.

 
Other Cytosolic Proteases Can Also Contribute to the Degradation of Retro-translocated PrP when Proteasome Activity Is Compromised—We noticed that treatments with different proteasome inhibitors resulted in different amounts of PrP accumulation in the pellet fraction (Fig. 8). Because increasing epoxomicin concentration to as high as 100 µM did not change the amount of accumulated PrP (data not shown), we concluded that different amounts of PrP accumulation reflect the pharmacological characteristics of different inhibitors rather than dosage differences of inhibitors. Compared with epoxomicin or lactacystin, MG132 is a rather nonspecific proteasome inhibitor. In addition to its strong proteasome inhibitory activity, it can also inhibit other proteases (39, 40). To rule out the possibility that the PrP accumulation is due to the inhibition of other proteases, we treated PC3M cells for 8 h with lysosome inhibitor NH4Cl or chloroquine or with a calpain-specific inhibitor, MDL28170 Although unglycosylated PrP accumulated in the pellet fraction in cells treated with proteasome inhibitors, there was no PrP accumulation in cells treated with lysosome inhibitors or calpain inhibitor (Fig. 9A), suggesting that the proteasome is the primary degradation machinery for PrP in the cytosol.



View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 9.
Degradation of PrP in the cytosol by calpain when proteasome is inhibited. A, PC3M cells were treated with different inhibitors as indicated. The detergent cell lysates were sedimented, and PrP in the pellet or supernatant fractions were detected by immunoblot analysis with 3F4 anti-PrP antibody. B, PC3M cells were treated with different combinations of inhibitors as indicated. Analysis was performed exactly as in A. C, quantification of accumulated PrP in the pellet fractions of PC3M cell treated with different inhibitors as indicated. Standard deviations are reflected by error bars. The asterisk indicates that the difference between cells treated with epoxomicin alone or with epoxomicin plus MDL28170is statistically significant (p = 0.0035). Concentrations of inhibitors used here: epoxomicin, 10 µM; lactacystin, 10 µM; MG132, 50 µM; NH4Cl, 1 mM; cloroquine, 200 µM; MDL28170 100 µM.

 
An alternative explanation for the differences of various proteasome inhibitors could be that other cytosolic proteases will degrade PrP in the cytosol only if its primary degradation machinery, the proteasome, is inhibited. To test this hypothesis, we treated cells with epoxomicin or MG132 alone and treated them with epoxomicin plus NH4Cl, chloroquine or MDL28170(Fig. 9B). Although epoxomicin plus lysosomal inhibitors (NH4Cl or chloroquine) had no effect on PrP accumulation, cells treated with epoxomicin plus MDL28170 a specific inhibitor against cytosolic calpains, showed significant increases in the amount of accumulated PrP in the pellet fraction (Fig. 9, B and C). This result demonstrates that other cytosolic proteases can also contribute to the degradation of PrP in the cytosol. The fact that cytosolic proteases instead of lysosome proteases contribute to the degradation of PrP further supports our results of cytosolic accumulation of these PrP molecules. Notably, even in cells treated with epoxomicin plus MDL28170 the level of PrP accumulation is not as high as that in cells treated with MG132 alone (Fig. 9, B and C), indicating that additional cytosolic proteases may contribute to cytosolic PrP degradation.

Accumulation of PrP in Primary Mouse Cortical Neurons upon Proteasome Inhibition—Because the main pathological changes during prion disease occur in neurons, retro-translocation of PrP has to occur in neurons for cytosolic PrP to be a valid candidate for the neurotoxic form in prion disease. To test whether PrP in neurons is subject to retro-translocation, we treated mouse cortical neuron primary cultures with or without MG132 or with MG132 plus brefeldin A (an ER stress-inducing agent) (41). Upon proteasome inhibition, there was a clear increase of unglycosylated PrP appearing in the pellet fraction (Fig. 10). Higher amounts of PrP accumulation were detected in cells treated with MG132 plus brefeldin A (Fig. 10), suggesting that brefeldin A increases PrP retro-translocation from the ER. Accumulation of PrP after proteasome inhibition in primary neurons suggests that retro-translocation of PrP occurs in neurons.



View larger version (61K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 10.
Accumulation of unglycosylated PrP in primary mouse cortical neurons treated with proteasome inhibitor. Primary mouse cortical neurons were cultured for 7 days and treated with 50 µM MG132 alone or 50 µM MG132 plus 5 µg/ml brefeldin A for 8 h. The detergent cell lysates were sedimented, and the presence of PrP in the pellet or supernatant fractions was determined by immunoblot analysis with 7A12 anti-PrP antibody. Equal loading was verified with total protein stain of the blot.

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Retro-translocation of PrP from the ER to the cytosol is a natural route for membrane-associated PrP to enter the cytosol. Our results suggest that a portion of endogenous wild-type PrP is retro-translocated to the cytosol for degradation by the proteasome. Moreover, retro-translocated PrP is also subject to the digestion by other cytosolic proteases when the proteasome is inhibited. If escaped proteolysis, accumulated PrP in the cytosol will aggregate, and aggregated PrP molecules are apparently resistant to further degradation.

Whether the cytosolic PrP accumulation after proteasome inhibition results from retro-translocation of PrP from the ER or from the portion of PrP that never enters the ER has been controversial (29). Our previous results suggested that the accumulated PrP in the cytosol is from the PrP that retrotranslocated from the ER (27). Here, we showed that the accumulated PrP is without the N-terminal signal peptide (Fig. 6). Because the cleavage of the signal peptide occurs in the ER lumen, these PrP molecules must have entered the ER and retro-translocated to the cytosol. In addition, the accumulated PrP has exactly the same size as that of deglycosylated PrP from two different cell lines or from mouse brain (Fig. 5), suggesting these molecules have been through the same processing in the lumen of ER. Therefore, we conclude that the cytosolic PrP accumulation in these cells results from PrP molecules that have been in the lumen of ER.

An unexpected finding of this study is the increase of mRNA level of endogenous PrP upon proteasome inhibition. This small but very consistent increase of PrP mRNA levels is likely due to the fact that there are two heat shock transcription factor (HSF)-binding sites in the PrP promoter (42). Because PrP expression is up-regulated during heat shock treatment, these HSF binding sites are obviously functional inside cells (42, 43). Proteasome inhibition is known to increase the half-lives of various short-lived transcription factors, including HSF (44, 45). Increased HSF protein levels may cause the PrP mRNA level increase during proteasome inhibition. But the small increase of PrP mRNA level cannot explain the massive accumulation of unglycosylated and aggregated PrP in the cytosol upon proteasome inhibition. The accumulation of unglycosylated and aggregated PrP results from the accumulation of retro-translocated PrP in the cytosol.

Retro-translocation of protein from ER to the cytosol is a major cellular pathway to remove misfolded and misassembled proteins in the secretory pathway (46). Accumulated evidence suggests that, except for a few transmembrane proteins, most of these proteins are exported from ER through a protein channel (46–48). To fit through the pore of the channel, retrotranslocated proteins are believed to be at least partially unfolded (46, 49). ER resident chaperones have been proposed to participate in recognizing and delivering the substrate to the channel for retro-translocation (49). As a lumenal glycosylphosphatidylinositol-anchored protein, PrP is likely to be retrotranslocated through the pore of the protein channel. To pass through this pore, the retro-translocated PrP has to remain unfolded. ER chaperones may play a role in maintaining the unfolded-status of PrP. Indeed, a disease-associated mutant PrP has been found to remain associated with ER chaperone BiP for a prolonged time and degraded by the proteasome (26).

The appearance of unfolded PrP molecules in the cytosol will lead to several consequences explaining our observations. First, it can be a substrate for proteasome degradation as other retro-translocated proteins. Second, when proteasome activity is compromised, unfolded PrP molecules will accumulate in the cytosol, an environment that is not natural for PrP. Therefore, these unfolded PrP molecules will be susceptible to digestion by various cytosolic proteases. Third, the conformational change of an unfolded PrP exposed to the reducing cytosolic environment is similar to the folding of a recombinant PrP under reducing conditions. It has been shown that recombinant PrP will fold into a {beta}-sheet rich, proteinase K-resistant, aggregated conformation under the reducing conditions (18–20). Thus, the majority accumulated PrP becomes aggregated in the reducing cytosolic environment (more than two-thirds of accumulated PrP was aggregated). Fourth, detection of aggregated PrP in cells treated only with very specific proteasome inhibitors (such as epoxomicin) indicates that some PrP molecules can escape other cytosolic proteases digestion. This is likely due to the inaccessibility of cytosolic proteases to these PrP molecules once they are aggregated.

We found that calpain is one of the cytosolic proteases contributing to the degradation of retro-translocated PrP in the cytosol when proteasome activity is compromised. The calpain proteases are a family of Ca2+-activated cysteine proteases localized in the cytosol (50). Interestingly, inhibition of calpain-dependent endoproteolytic cleavage has been shown to inhibit the accumulation of PrPSc in scrapie-infected cells and reduce infectivity associated with these cells (51). Whether cytosolic PrP plays any role in these calpain-mediated effects is unknown, but the contribution of calpain to the cytosolic PrP degradation could potentially explain these effects. Proteasome activity decreases during prion disease (52). Therefore, it is reasonable to postulate that scrapie-infected cells may also have a decreased proteasome activity. Under this circumstance, cytosolic proteases, like calpain, may play a role in removing cytosolic PrP. Inhibition of calpain activity could result in the accumulation of toxic cytosolic PrP molecules. In vitro, scrapie does not uniformly infect all cells; only some of the cells are infected. Upon calpain inhibition, infected cells would be gradually selected out because of the accumulation of the toxic cytosolic PrP. As a result, an increased number of uninfected cells will be populated in the culture, which will be reflected by reduced PrPSc accumulation and infectivity.

In the course of our experiments, we observed increasing cell death (detached cells floating in the media) in primary neurons and neuronal like NT2 cells treated with proteasome inhibitor. Cell death was more obvious when proteasome inhibition lasted for a longer period of time. In contrast, no obvious cell death was observed in PC3M or DU145 cells even after 24 h of proteasome inhibition. These observations seem to correlate neuronal cell death with cytosolic accumulation of PrP. However, proteasome inhibition affects many aspects of cell metabolism, and events other than cytosolic accumulation of PrP could very well be the reason for neuronal cell death. Therefore, further investigation is required to determine whether cultured neurons can recapitulate the neurotoxicity caused by cytosolic PrP in transgenic mice (14).

Retro-translocation of PrP to the cytosol has been observed in human primary neurons by subcellular fractionation (28). Here, we observed accumulation of PrP in primarily cultured mouse cortical neurons with proteasome inhibition. The characteristics of in vitro cultured neurons may vary depending on what kind of neurons is selected, which procedure is used, and which culture condition is applied. However, observations of PrP retro-translocation by using two different assays in two different kinds of neurons suggest that this pathway exists in neurons (28). Notably, PrP in the cytosol has been detected in vivo in a subset of neurons in the hippocampus, neocortex, and thalamus of wild-type mouse brains by using high resolution cryoimmunogold electron microscopy (53). Retro-translocation of PrP in neurons could explain how PrP travels to the cytosol of these neurons. All together, the appearance of retro-translocated PrP in the cytosol when proteasome activity is compromised provides a foundation for the hypothesis that cytosolic PrP is involved in the pathogenesis of prion disease.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported by a grant from the Ellison Medical Foundation. The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Back

To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 614-688-0408; Fax: 614-292-4118; E-mail: ma.131{at}osu.edu.

1 The abbreviations used are: ER, endoplasmic reticulum; PNGase F, peptide:N-glycosidase F; Endo H, endoglycosidase H; HSF, heat shock transcription factor. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Dr. Virginia Lee (University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine) for providing NT2 cells; Drs. Zhen Fan and Yang Lu (M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas) for providing PC3M and DU145 cells; Dr. Andréa C. LeBlanc (McGill University) for providing the clone of Human PrP; Dr. Robert H. Costa (University of Illinois) for providing human cyclophilin probe; and Dr. David Harris (Washington University School of Medicine) for providing anti-signal peptide antibody. We thank Andrew Steele and Dr. Karen Colley for critically reading this manuscript.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Prusiner, S. B. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 13363-13383[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Collinge, J. (2001) Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 519-550[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Caughey, B., and Chesebro, B. (1997) Trends Cell Biol. 7, 56-62[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Legname, G., Baskakov, I. V., Nguyen, H. O., Riesner, D., Cohen, F. E., DeArmond, S. J., and Prusiner, S. B. (2004) Science 305, 673-676[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Aguzzi, A., and Miele, G. (2004) Curr. Opin. Neurol. 17, 337-342[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Chiesa, R., and Harris, D. A. (2001) Neurobiol. Dis. 8, 743-763[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Brandner, S., Isenmann, S., Raeber, A., Fischer, M., Sailer, A., Kobayashi, Y., Marino, S., Weissmann, C., and Aguzzi, A. (1996) Nature 379, 339-343[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Mallucci, G., Dickinson, A., Linehan, J., Klohn, P. C., Brandner, S., and Collinge, J. (2003) Science 302, 871-874[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Wopfner, F., Weidenhofer, G., Schneider, R., von Brunn, A., Gilch, S., Schwarz, T. F., Werner, T., and Schatzl, H. M. (1999) J. Mol. Biol. 289, 1163-1178[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Zanusso, G., Liu, D., Ferrari, S., Hegyi, I., Yin, X., Aguzzi, A., Hornemann, S., Liemann, S., Glockshuber, R., Manson, J. C., Brown, P., Petersen, R. B., Gambetti, P., and Sy, M. S. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 8812-8816[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Hegde, R. S., Mastrianni, J. A., Scott, M. R., DeFea, K. A., Tremblay, P., Torchia, M., DeArmond, S. J., Prusiner, S. B., and Lingappa, V. R. (1998) Science 279, 827-834[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Hegde, R. S., Tremblay, P., Groth, D., DeArmond, S. J., Prusiner, S. B., and Lingappa, V. R. (1999) Nature 402, 822-826[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Solforosi, L., Criado, J. R., McGavern, D. B., Wirz, S., Sanchez-Alavez, M., Sugama, S., DeGiorgio, L. A., Volpe, B. T., Wiseman, E., Abalos, G., Masliah, E., Gilden, D., Oldstone, M. B., Conti, B., and Williamson, R. A. (2004) Science 303, 1514-1516[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Ma, J., Wollmann, R., and Lindquist, S. (2002) Science 298, 1781-1785[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Chiesa, R., Piccardo, P., Ghetti, B., and Harris, D. A. (1998) Neuron 21, 1339-1351[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Ma, J., and Lindquist, S. (1999) Nat. Cell Biol. 1, 358-361[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Ma, J., and Lindquist, S. (2002) Science 298, 1785-1788[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Jackson, G. S., Hosszu, L. L., Power, A., Hill, A. F., Kenney, J., Saibil, H., Craven, C. J., Waltho, J. P., Clarke, A. R., and Collinge, J. (1999) Science 283, 1935-1937[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Mehlhorn, I., Groth, D., Stockel, J., Moffat, B., Reilly, D., Yansura, D., Willett, W. S., Baldwin, M., Fletterick, R., Cohen, F. E., Vandlen, R., Henner, D., and Prusiner, S. B. (1996) Biochemistry 35, 5528-5537[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Maiti, N. R., and Surewicz, W. K. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 2427-2431[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Harris, D. A. (1999) Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 12, 429-444[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Priola, S. A., Chesebro, B., and Caughey, B. (2003) Science 300, 917-919[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Aguzzi, A., and Heikenwalder, M. (2003) Nature 423, 127-129[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Zanusso, G., Petersen, R. B., Jin, T., Jing, Y., Kanoush, R., Ferrari, S., Gambetti, P., and Singh, N. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 23396-23404[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Yedidia, Y., Horonchik, L., Tzaban, S., Yanai, A., and Taraboulos, A. (2001) EMBO J. 20, 5383-5391[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Jin, T., Gu, Y., Zanusso, G., Sy, M., Kumar, A., Cohen, M., Gambetti, P., and Singh, N. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 38699-38704[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Ma, J., and Lindquist, S. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 14955-14960[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Roucou, X., Guo, Q., Zhang, Y., Goodyer, C. G., and LeBlanc, A. C. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 40877-40881[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Drisaldi, B., Stewart, R. S., Adles, C., Stewart, L. R., Quaglio, E., Biasini, E., Fioriti, L., Chiesa, R., and Harris, D. A. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 21732-21743[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Wang, L., Liu, B., Schmidt, M., Lu, Y., Wels, W., and Fan, Z. (2001) Prostate 47, 21-28[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Ochel, H. J., Gademann, G., Trepel, J., and Neckers, L. (2003) Glycobiology 13, 655-660[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Pan, T., Li, R., Wong, B. S., Liu, T., Gambetti, P., and Sy, M. S. (2002) J. Neurochem. 81, 1092-1101[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Pan, T., Li, R., Kang, S. C., Wong, B. S., Wisniewski, T., and Sy, M. S. (2004) J. Neurochem. 90, 1205-1217[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Borchelt, D. R., Taraboulos, A., and Prusiner, S. B. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 267, 16188-16199[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Caughey, B., Race, R. E., Ernst, D., Buchmeier, M. J., and Chesebro, B. (1989) J. Virol. 63, 175-181[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Young, J. C., Barral, J. M., and Ulrich Hartl, F. (2003) Trends Biochem. Sci. 28, 541-547[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Chesebro, B., Wehrly, K., Caughey, B., Nishio, J., Ernst, D., and Race, R. (1993) Dev. Biol. Stand. 80, 131-140[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Pleasure, S. J., and Lee, V. M. (1993) J. Neurosci. Res. 35, 585-602[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  39. Fuertes, G., Martin De Llano, J. J., Villarroya, A., Rivett, A. J., and Knecht, E. (2003) Biochem. J. 375, 75-86[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Lee, D. H., and Goldberg, A. L. (1998) Trends Cell Biol. 8, 397-403[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Kikuchi, S., Shinpo, K., Tsuji, S., Yabe, I., Niino, M., and Tashiro, K. (2003) J. Neurosci. Res. 71, 591-599[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  42. Shyu, W. C., Harn, H. J., Saeki, K., Kubosaki, A., Matsumoto, Y., Onodera, T., Chen, C. J., Hsu, Y. D., and Chiang, Y. H. (2002) Mol. Neurobiol. 26, 1-12[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. Shyu, W. C., Kao, M. C., Chou, W. Y., Hsu, Y. D., and Soong, B. W. (2000) Neuroreport 11, 771-774[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  44. Kawazoe, Y., Nakai, A., Tanabe, M., and Nagata, K. (1998) Eur. J. Biochem. 255, 356-362[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. Pirkkala, L., Alastalo, T. P., Zuo, X., Benjamin, I. J., and Sistonen, L. (2000) Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 2670-2675[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Tsai, B., Ye, Y., and Rapoport, T. A. (2002) Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 3, 246-255[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Lilley, B. N., and Ploegh, H. L. (2004) Nature 429, 834-840[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  48. Ye, Y., Shibata, Y., Yun, C., Ron, D., and Rapoport, T. A. (2004) Nature 429, 841-847[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  49. McCracken, A. A., and Brodsky, J. L. (2003) Bioessays 25, 868-877[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  50. Huang, Y., and Wang, K. K. (2001) Trends Mol. Med. 7, 355-362[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  51. Yadavalli, R., Guttmann, R. P., Seward, T., Centers, A. P., Williamson, R. A., and Telling, G. C. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 21948-21956[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Kang, S. C., Brown, D. R., Whiteman, M., Li, R., Pan, T., Perry, G., Wisniewski, T., Sy, M. S., and Wong, B. S. (2004) J. Pathol. 203, 603-608[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  53. Mironov, A., Jr., Latawiec, D., Wille, H., Bouzamondo-Bernstein, E., Legname, G., Williamson, R. A., Burton, D., DeArmond, S. J., Prusiner, S. B., and Peters, P. J. (2003) J. Neurosci. 23, 7183-7193[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Gen. Virol.Home page
M. Dron, F. Dandoy-Dron, M. K. Farooq Salamat, and H. Laude
Proteasome inhibitors promote the sequestration of PrPSc into aggresomes within the cytosol of prion-infected CAD neuronal cells
J. Gen. Virol., August 1, 2009; 90(8): 2050 - 2060.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Biol. CellHome page
A. Ashok and R. S. Hegde
Retrotranslocation of Prion Proteins from the Endoplasmic Reticulum by Preventing GPI Signal Transamidation
Mol. Biol. Cell, August 1, 2008; 19(8): 3463 - 3476.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Physiol. Rev.Home page
R. Linden, V. R. Martins, M. A. M. Prado, M. Cammarota, I. Izquierdo, and R. R. Brentani
Physiology of the Prion Protein
Physiol Rev, April 1, 2008; 88(2): 673 - 728.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Virol.Home page
E. M. Norstrom, M. F. Ciaccio, B. Rassbach, R. Wollmann, and J. A. Mastrianni
Cytosolic Prion Protein Toxicity Is Independent of Cellular Prion Protein Expression and Prion Propagation
J. Virol., March 15, 2007; 81(6): 2831 - 2837.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
A. Orsi, L. Fioriti, R. Chiesa, and R. Sitia
Conditions of Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress Favor the Accumulation of Cytosolic Prion Protein
J. Biol. Chem., October 13, 2006; 281(41): 30431 - 30438.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
X. Wang, F. Wang, L. Arterburn, R. Wollmann, and J. Ma
The Interaction between Cytoplasmic Prion Protein and the Hydrophobic Lipid Core of Membrane Correlates with Neurotoxicity
J. Biol. Chem., May 12, 2006; 281(19): 13559 - 13565.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
L. Fioriti, S. Dossena, L. R. Stewart, R. S. Stewart, D. A. Harris, G. Forloni, and R. Chiesa
Cytosolic Prion Protein (PrP) Is Not Toxic in N2a Cells and Primary Neurons Expressing Pathogenic PrP Mutations
J. Biol. Chem., March 25, 2005; 280(12): 11320 - 11328.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
280/1/317    most recent
M410649200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wang, X.
Right arrow Articles by Ma, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wang, X.
Right arrow Articles by Ma, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 All ASBMB Journals   Molecular and Cellular Proteomics 
 Journal of Lipid Research   ASBMB Today 
Copyright © 2005 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement