4.6 Article

Evidence for adenylate cyclase as a scaffold protein for Ras2-Ira interaction in Saccharomyces cerevisie

期刊

CELLULAR SIGNALLING
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 1147-1154

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cellsig.2014.02.001

关键词

cAMP/PKA pathway; Cyrl; Ras2-GTP; cAMP; Yeast

资金

  1. FAR (ex 60%)
  2. FWO-Vlaanderen
  3. KU Leuven

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Data in literature suggest that budding yeast adenylate cyclase forms a membrane-associated complex with the upstream components of the cAMP/PKA pathway. Here we provide evidences that adenylate cyclase (Cyrl p) acts as a scaffold protein keeping Ras2 available for its regulatory factors. We show that in a strain with deletion of the CYR1 gene (cyrl Delta pde2 Delta msn2 Delta msn4 Delta) the basal Ras2-GTP level is very high and this is independent on the lack of feedback inhibition that could result from the absence of adenylate cyclase activity. Moreover, strains effected either in the intrinsic adenylate cyclase activity (fill strain) or in the stimulation of adenylate cyclase activity by active G-proteins (lcrl strain) had a normal basal and glucose-induced Ras2-GTP level, indicating that adenylate cyclase activity does not influence the Ras2 activation state and suggesting that Cyrl protein is required for the proper interaction between Ras2 and the Ira proteins. We also provide evidence that the two Ras-binding sites mapped on Cyrl p are required for the signalling complex assembly. In fact, we show that the cyrl A, strain expressing CYR1 alleles lacking either the LRR region or the C-terminal domain still have a high basal and glucose-induced Ras2-GTP level. In contrast, a mutant expressing a Cyrl protein only missing the N-terminal domain showed a normal Ras2 activation pattern. Likewise, the Ras2-GTP levels are comparable in the wild type strain and the srv2 Delta strain, supporting the hypothesis that Cap is not essential for the Ras-adenylate cyclase interaction. (c) 2014 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.6
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