title: To misfold or to lose structure?: Detection and degradation of oxidized proteins by the 20S proteasome.
abstract: Aggregation of proteins damaged by stress is often a causal factor of cell death. To prevent aggregation, eukaryotic cells rapidly degrade damaged proteins by engaging two types of proteasomes. The first type is the 26S proteasome (26SP) which is composed of a cylindrical proteolytic core-the 20S proteasome (20SP)-and one or two regulatory particles (RPs) that interact with ubiquitinated proteins. The second type is the free 20SP which mediates ubiquitin-independent proteolysis. We have recently shown that loss of RP function in Arabidopsis leads to an expected decrease in 26SP-dependent protein degradation and hypersensitivity to stresses that induce protein misfolding. Surprisingly, RP mutants have increased 20SP activity and tolerance to oxidative stress. This finding suggests that misfolded proteins carry one type of degradation signal that steers them to ubiquitination enzymes and the 26SP, while oxidatively damaged proteins carry another that guides them directly to the 20SP for degradation. Here we suggest that protein oxidation induces the formation of unstructured regions that serve as targeting signals for 20SP-dependent proteolysis.
authors.affiliation: Plant Physiology; Biochemistry; Molecular Biology Program; Department of Plant and Soil Sciences; University of Kentucky; Lexington, Kentucky USA.
authors.forename: Jasmina
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Kurepa
authors.forename: Jan A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Smalle
references.citation: Biochimie. 2008 Feb;90(2):324-35
references.pmid: 17825468
references.citation: Nat Cell Biol. 2005 Aug;7(8):766-72
references.pmid: 16056268
references.citation: Amino Acids. 2007;32(4):527-34
references.pmid: 17103119
references.citation: Bioessays. 2006 Aug;28(8):844-9
references.pmid: 16927316
references.citation: Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2005 Mar;6(3):197-208
references.pmid: 15738986
references.citation: Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2004 Sep;11(9):830-7
references.pmid: 15311270
references.citation: Development. 2004 May;131(9):2101-11
references.pmid: 15073153
references.citation: Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2004 Dec;36(12):2519-30
references.pmid: 15325589
references.citation: Trends Cell Biol. 2003 Nov;13(11):550-3
references.pmid: 14573346
references.citation: Plant Cell. 2003 Apr;15(4):965-80
references.pmid: 12671091
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2007 Sep 15;23(18):2376-84
references.pmid: 17709338
references.citation: Cell. 2000 May 12;101(4):341-4
references.pmid: 10830160
references.citation: Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2004;55:555-90
references.pmid: 15377232
references.citation: Trends Cell Biol. 2006 Dec;16(12):657-63
references.pmid: 17084628
references.citation: Biochim Biophys Acta. 2004 Nov 29;1695(1-3):171-88
references.pmid: 15571814
references.citation: J Biol Chem. 2004 Oct 29;279(44):46135-42
references.pmid: 15319444
references.citation: Arch Biochem Biophys. 2007 Jun 15;462(2):231-7
references.pmid: 17362872
references.citation: Plant Cell. 2002 Jan;14(1):17-32
references.pmid: 11826296
references.citation: Science. 2006 Jul 7;313(5783):52-3
references.pmid: 16825557
references.citation: J Biol Chem. 2001 Jan 12;276(2):937-43
references.pmid: 11010965
references.citation: Nature. 2003 Dec 18;426(6968):895-9
references.pmid: 14685250
references.citation: Plant J. 2008 Jan;53(1):102-14
references.pmid: 17971041