4.6 Article

Role of the HSPA9/HSC20 chaperone pair in promoting directional human iron-sulfur cluster exchange involving monothiol glutaredoxin 5

期刊

JOURNAL OF INORGANIC BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 184, 期 -, 页码 100-107

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2018.04.007

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AI072443]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Iron-sulfur clusters are essential cofactors found across all domains of life. Their assembly and transfer are accomplished by highly conserved protein complexes and partners. In eukaryotes a [2Fe-25] cluster is first assembled in the mitochondria on the iron-sulfur cluster scaffold protein ISCU in tandem with iron, sulfide, and electron donors. Current models suggest that a chaperone pair interacts with a cluster-bound ISCU to facilitate cluster transfer to a monothiol glutaredoxin. In humans this protein is glutaredoxin 5 (GLRX5) and the cluster can then be exchanged with a variety of target apo proteins. By use of circular dichroism spectroscopy, the kinetics of cluster exchange reactivity has been evaluated for human GLRX5 with a variety of cluster donor and acceptor partners, and the role of chaperones determined for several of these. In contrast to the prokaryotic model, where heat-shock type chaperone proteins HscA and HscB are required for successful and efficient transfer of a [2Fe-2S] cluster from the ISCU scaffold to a monothiol glutaredoxin. However, in the human system the chaperone homologs, HSPA9 and HSC20, are not necessary for human ISCU to promote cluster transfer to GLRX5, and appear to promote the reverse transfer, Cluster exchange with the human iron-sulfur cluster carrier protein NFU1 and ferredoxins (FDX's), and the role of chaperones, has also been evaluated, demonstrating in certain cases control over the directionality of cluster transfer. In contrast to other prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms, NFU1 is identified as a more likely physiological donor of [2Fe-2S] cluster to human GLRX5 than ISCU.

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

4.6
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