JCB logo
BD Biosciences Cell Culture Solutions
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents

Published 3 January 2005. doi:10.1083/jcb1681iti1
The Rockefeller University Press, 0021-9525 $8.00
JCB, Volume 168, Number 1, 8-9
This Article
Right arrow PDF (Full Text)
Right arrow PPT slides of all figures
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JCB
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LeBrasseur, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by LeBrasseur, N.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

In This Issue

Loopy Sec61 mutants


Mutations in L6 (blue) and L8 (white) define contact points (red) for cytoplasmic partners of Sec61.

Sec61 forms the pore through which proteins enter the ER. On page 67, Cheng et al. show that its cytoplasmic face makes at least two contributions to translocation before the protein passage event.The predicted structure of yeast Sec61 suggests that several conserved charged residues, which are in cytoplasmic loops that link adjacent membrane-spanning domains, may interact with the ribosome during cotranslational translocation. The authors mutated many of these candidate residues within Sec61. Several of the mutations blocked cotranslational protein translocation in vivo, but the particular effect depended on which loop was mutated.

Point mutations in loop 8 (L8) interfered with the binding affinity between the ribosomal large subunit and the pore. Without this contact, normally ER-localized proteins accumulated in the cytoplasm. Cytoplasmic protein accumulation was also seen when loop 6 (L6) was mutated, although the binding affinity of the L6 mutants for the ribosome was not affected, suggesting that the cytoplasmic face of Sec61 has yet another function in translocation.

This function might be to improve the efficiency of ribosome binding by signaling that a channel is unoccupied. Before transfering to the translocon, the ribosome first binds to the signal recognition particle (SRP) and its receptor (SR). The authors hypothesize that interactions between an unoccupied L6 and the SR might place the SR-SRP-ribosome intermediate near open channels and thus hasten its transfer. They are now looking for definitive evidence of L6–receptor interactions. {iti_end}



Nicole LeBrasseur

lebrasn{at}rockefeller.edu


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Related Article

Identification of cytoplasmic residues of Sec61p involved in ribosome binding and cotranslational translocation
Zhiliang Cheng, Ying Jiang, Elisabet C. Mandon, and Reid Gilmore
J. Cell Biol. 2005 168: 67-77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




This Article
Right arrow PDF (Full Text)
Right arrow PPT slides of all figures
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JCB
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LeBrasseur, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by LeBrasseur, N.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?


  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents