Nalysis of Yip1Awas extremely sensitive to deletion mutagenesis. This was

Nalysis of Yip1Awas extremely sensitive to deletion mutagenesis. This was especially the case for TM3 and TM4, where even single amino acid substitutions severely compromised protein stability. We speculate that the five predicted TM helices pack together to adopt a stable tertiary structure, with TM3/4 at the core. As we were unable to generate any stably expressing variants within TM3/4, it is unclear whether Sapropterin (dihydrochloride) price individual residues within this region are required specifically for the ER structural maintenance function of Yip1A, or whether they might simply play a scaffolding role for protein folding and stabilization. Unlike TM3 and TM4, the remaining predicted helices TM1, TM2 and TM5 could be extensively mutagenized without compromising protein stability. Indeed, the entirety of TM1 and the latter half of TM5 could be replaced by Ala/Leu residues, indicating that TM1 and the second half of TM5 are unimportant either for protein stability or for protein function. In contrast, TM2 and the first half of TM5 seemed functionally important at first. Their substitution with stretches of Ala/Leu yielded nonfunctional though stably expressed protein. However, point mutations within these regions failed to identify individual residues crucial for function. We can envision two straightforward explanations for this apparent discrepancy. First, the entire length of TM2 may pack in a specific way against TM3/4/5, via a relatively large binding interface, to adopt a tertiary structure required for function. And therefore, while large-scale substitutions in TM2 (or TM5) might be deleterious to protein function because they would compromise the helix packing, individual point mutations may not be sufficiently disruptive to helix packing to undermine protein stability and function. A second possibility, not incompatible with the first, is that Ala/Leu 223488-57-1 web replacement is a relatively conservative change for membrane-spanning residues. Hence, additional required residues may have been missed in our analysis. A comprehensive scan of the remainder of the Yip1A membrane spanning domain as well as its cytoplasmic domain revealed only a surprisingly few amino acids whose identity was crucial for function: residues predicted to lie on one face of a predicted short alpha helix in the cytoplasmic domain (L92, E95, L96) and those within the first luminal loop and adjacent TM2 helix (K146 and V152). As Yip1A lacks any identifiable structural motifs indicative of function, we speculate that these residues interface either with a required protein-binding partner and/or directly with the phospholipid bilayer to regulate ER whorl formation.least two distinct essential functions: one that depends on Yif1p and Ypt1p/Ypt31p binding; and 23977191 a separate function in regulating ER structure that does not depend on the same binding partners.How might Yip1A control ER whorl formation?Candidate Yip1A/Yip1p binding partners additional to Yif1A/ Yif1p and Ypt1p/Ypt31p GTPases [16,18] include the curvatureinducing integral ER membrane protein Yop1p/DP1 [17,35]. We previously reported that the nonfunctional E95K mutant variant of Yip1A retains binding to DP1 [10], the mammalian homologue of Yop1p [35]. This was also the case for the K146E/V152L mutant variant (data not shown). Thus, none of the previously identified Yip1A/Yip1p binding partners are obvious candidates for mediating the ER structural maintenance role of Yip1A. A final intriguing possibility is that Yip1A affects ER membrane m.Nalysis of Yip1Awas extremely sensitive to deletion mutagenesis. This was especially the case for TM3 and TM4, where even single amino acid substitutions severely compromised protein stability. We speculate that the five predicted TM helices pack together to adopt a stable tertiary structure, with TM3/4 at the core. As we were unable to generate any stably expressing variants within TM3/4, it is unclear whether individual residues within this region are required specifically for the ER structural maintenance function of Yip1A, or whether they might simply play a scaffolding role for protein folding and stabilization. Unlike TM3 and TM4, the remaining predicted helices TM1, TM2 and TM5 could be extensively mutagenized without compromising protein stability. Indeed, the entirety of TM1 and the latter half of TM5 could be replaced by Ala/Leu residues, indicating that TM1 and the second half of TM5 are unimportant either for protein stability or for protein function. In contrast, TM2 and the first half of TM5 seemed functionally important at first. Their substitution with stretches of Ala/Leu yielded nonfunctional though stably expressed protein. However, point mutations within these regions failed to identify individual residues crucial for function. We can envision two straightforward explanations for this apparent discrepancy. First, the entire length of TM2 may pack in a specific way against TM3/4/5, via a relatively large binding interface, to adopt a tertiary structure required for function. And therefore, while large-scale substitutions in TM2 (or TM5) might be deleterious to protein function because they would compromise the helix packing, individual point mutations may not be sufficiently disruptive to helix packing to undermine protein stability and function. A second possibility, not incompatible with the first, is that Ala/Leu replacement is a relatively conservative change for membrane-spanning residues. Hence, additional required residues may have been missed in our analysis. A comprehensive scan of the remainder of the Yip1A membrane spanning domain as well as its cytoplasmic domain revealed only a surprisingly few amino acids whose identity was crucial for function: residues predicted to lie on one face of a predicted short alpha helix in the cytoplasmic domain (L92, E95, L96) and those within the first luminal loop and adjacent TM2 helix (K146 and V152). As Yip1A lacks any identifiable structural motifs indicative of function, we speculate that these residues interface either with a required protein-binding partner and/or directly with the phospholipid bilayer to regulate ER whorl formation.least two distinct essential functions: one that depends on Yif1p and Ypt1p/Ypt31p binding; and 23977191 a separate function in regulating ER structure that does not depend on the same binding partners.How might Yip1A control ER whorl formation?Candidate Yip1A/Yip1p binding partners additional to Yif1A/ Yif1p and Ypt1p/Ypt31p GTPases [16,18] include the curvatureinducing integral ER membrane protein Yop1p/DP1 [17,35]. We previously reported that the nonfunctional E95K mutant variant of Yip1A retains binding to DP1 [10], the mammalian homologue of Yop1p [35]. This was also the case for the K146E/V152L mutant variant (data not shown). Thus, none of the previously identified Yip1A/Yip1p binding partners are obvious candidates for mediating the ER structural maintenance role of Yip1A. A final intriguing possibility is that Yip1A affects ER membrane m.

Leave a Reply