4.4 Review

Sphingolipid transfer proteins defined by the GLTP-fold

期刊

QUARTERLY REVIEWS OF BIOPHYSICS
卷 48, 期 3, 页码 281-322

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S003358351400016X

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH/NCI [CA121493]
  2. NIH/NIGMS [GM45928]
  3. Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [BFU2010-17711]
  4. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [12-04-00168, 14-04-01671]
  5. Hormel Foundation
  6. Abby Rockefeller Mauze Trust
  7. Maloris Foundation
  8. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P30CA008748] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  9. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL125353] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  10. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM045928] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glycolipid transfer proteins (GLTPs) originally were identified as small (similar to 24 kDa), soluble, amphitropic proteins that specifically accelerate the intermembrane transfer of glycolipids. GLTPs and related homologs now are known to adopt a unique, helically dominated, two-layer sandwich' architecture defined as the GLTP-fold that provides the structural underpinning for the eukaryotic GLTP superfamily. Recent advances now provide exquisite insights into structural features responsible for lipid headgroup selectivity as well as the adaptability of the hydrophobic compartment for accommodating hydrocarbon chains of differing length and unsaturation. A new understanding of the structural versatility and evolutionary premium placed on the GLTP motif has emerged. Human GLTP-motifs have evolved to function not only as glucosylceramide binding/transferring domains for phosphoinositol 4-phosphate adaptor protein-2 during glycosphingolipid biosynthesis but also as selective binding/transfer proteins for ceramide-1-phosphate. The latter, known as ceramide-1-phosphate transfer protein, recently has been shown to form GLTP-fold while critically regulating Group-IV cytoplasmic phospholipase A(2) activity and pro-inflammatory eicosanoid production.

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

4.4
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