4.7 Article

Distinct Roles of Mic12 and Mic27 in the Mitochondrial Contact Site and Cristae Organizing System

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 428, 期 8, 页码 1485-1492

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2016.02.031

关键词

crista junction; MICOS; mitofilin; QIL1; Saccharomyces cerevisiae

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [PF 202/8-1]
  2. Excellence Initiative of the German federal government [EXC 294 BIOSS]
  3. Excellence Initiative of the German state government [EXC 294 BIOSS]
  4. Excellence Initiative of the GSC-4 Spemann Graduate School
  5. [Sonderforschungsbereich 746]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mitochondria) inner membrane consists of two morphologically distinct domains, the inner boundary membrane and large invaginations termed cristae. Narrow membrane structures, the crista junctions, link these two domains. Maintenance of this elaborate architecture depends on the evolutionarily conserved mitochondrial contact site and cristae organizing system (MICOS), a multisubunit inner membrane protein complex. MICOS consists of two functional modules, a Mic60-Mic19 subcomplex that forms Mic60-mediated contact sites with the outer mitochondrial membrane and a Mic10-Mic12-Mic26-Mic27 membrane-sculpting subcomplex that contains large Mic10 oligomers. Deletion of MIC10 or MIC60 results in the loss of most crista junctions. Distinct views have been discussed about how the MICOS modules cooperate with each other. We searched for components required for the structural organization of MICOS and identified Mic12 and Mic27 as crucial factors with specific roles in MICOS complex formation. Mic27 promotes the stability of the Mic10 oligomers in the membrane-sculpting subcomplex, whereas Mic12 is required for the coupling of the two MICOS subcomplexes. We conclude that in addition to the MICOS core components Mic10 and Mic60, Mic12 and Mic27 play specific roles in the organization of the MICOS complex. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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