4.8 Article

In Vivo Formation of Protein Based Aqueous Microcompartments

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 131, 期 25, 页码 9094-9099

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ja902890r

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSERC Discovery
  2. Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we report the formation of protein based liquid droplets resulting in the formation of in vivo microcompartments in E coli or tobacco cells. These microcompartments were generated by expressing elastin-like polypeptides (ELP), which have the ability to undergo a reversible phase transition, resulting in the formation of an aqueous two-phase system (ATPS) in the cytoplasm of the cell. We prove that these microcompartments are liquid by expressing a fusion protein consisting of ELP and GFP and by performing fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) experiments at different stages of cell cultivation. In the initial phases of cell growth, the fusion protein concentration is low and is not sufficient to drive the formation of a second aqueous phase. As the intracellular fusion protein concentration increases with longer cultivation time, droplets start forming, and as protein expression continues, the droplets coalesce at the poles of the E coli cells. FRAP experiments with cells at different growth stages reveals that the protein in these ELP based droplets is comprised of aqueous and not solid aggregates, as seen in typical inclusion bodies. Staining of the ribosomes and coimaging of the ELP-GFP fusion protein showed that these compartments exclude the protein making machinery of the cell, acting as depots for newly formed protein. It is also shown, in vitro, that ELP based droplets result in the exclusion of proteases, protecting proteins from degradation. Additional studies are still required to test this possibility in vivo. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report characterizing the formation of an engineered extra aqueous phase in a living organism.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据