4.4 Article

Specific Binding of Tetratricopeptide Repeat Proteins to Heat Shock Protein 70 (Hsp70) and Heat Shock Protein 90 (Hsp90) Is Regulated by Affinity and Phosphorylation

期刊

BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 54, 期 48, 页码 7120-7131

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.biochem.5b00801

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [F31 AG043266-02]
  2. NIH [NS059690, GM109896]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70) and heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90) require the help of tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR) domain-containing cochaperones for many of their functions. Each monomer of Hsp70 or Hsp90 can interact with only a single TPR cochaperone at a time, and each member of the TPR cochaperone family brings distinct functions to the complex. Thus, competition for TPR binding sites on Hsp70 and Hsp90 appears to shape chaperone activity. Recent structural and biophysical efforts have improved our understanding of chaperone TPR contacts, focusing on the C-terminal EEVD motif that is present in both chaperones. To better understand these important protein-protein interactions on a wider scale, we measured the affinity of five TPR cochaperones, CHIP, Hop, DnaJC7, FKBP51, and FKBP52, for the C-termini of four members of the chaperone family, Hsc70, Hsp72, Hsp90 alpha, and Hsp90 beta, in vitro. These studies identified some surprising selectivity among the chaperone-TPR pairs, including the selective binding of FKBP51/52 to Hsp90 alpha/beta. These results also revealed that other TPR cochaperones are only able to weakly discriminate between the chaperones or between their paralogs. We also explored whether mimicking phosphorylation of serine and threonine residues near the EEVD motif might impact affinity and found that pseudophosphorylation had selective effects on binding to CHIP but not other cochaperones. Together, these findings suggest that both intrinsic affinity and post-translational modifications tune the interactions between the Hsp70 and Hsp90 proteins and the TPR cochaperones.

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