2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.csbj.2019.12.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Glu102 mutation disrupts higher-order oligomerization of the sigma 1 receptor

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

2
14
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
2
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They found that most of the agonists decrease multimer formation with a molecular weight of over 130 kDa, whereas antagonists increase such formations. Their results also showed that σ1R E102Q reduces multimer or high-order oligomers over dimers (49,50). In our study, σ1R-mCh formed exclusively monomers and dimers, while σ1R E102Q -mCh was also observed in trimers and tetramers ( Fig.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…They found that most of the agonists decrease multimer formation with a molecular weight of over 130 kDa, whereas antagonists increase such formations. Their results also showed that σ1R E102Q reduces multimer or high-order oligomers over dimers (49,50). In our study, σ1R-mCh formed exclusively monomers and dimers, while σ1R E102Q -mCh was also observed in trimers and tetramers ( Fig.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…SA4503 treatment decreased the formation of these four oligomeric states in the insoluble fraction, but increased the accumulation of monomers in the soluble fraction. The effects of agonists and antagonists on the oligomeric state of σ1R were recently investigated by another group (47)(48)(49)(50), who transfected HEK293 cells with non-tagged or tagged forms of σ1R and performed normal SDS-PAGE or PAGE with mild detergents (perfluorooctanoic acid or sodium lauroyl sarcosinate). They found that most of the agonists decrease multimer formation with a molecular weight of over 130 kDa, whereas antagonists increase such formations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, the reduced σ1R-σ1R interaction may arise from the membrane environment in which σ1R is localized such that the σ1R density may be too low to find an interacting partner. Further, while the exterior of the barrel motif of the C-terminal domain has been revealed by the crystal structures to be the interface for trimer, it is likely other part of the of the protein involves in forming other oligomer states, such as the N-terminus and N-terminal transmembrane helix [21]. The Nterminal tagging may potentially bias the protein towards dimer formation by facilitating the interactions between two monomers at their N-terminal region.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…E102 forms a hydrogen bond with Y173 in β10 [ 52 ] and a pair of hydrogen bonds with the backbone amide nitrogen atoms of V36 and F37, which are part of a structured tether between the transmembrane domain and cytosolic domain. The E102Q mutation abolishes the negatively charged cluster located in the linker region between β2 and β3 (residues 98–106, ASLSEYVLL) and alters hydrogen-bonding properties at the junction between the N-terminal helix and the C-terminal domain adjacent to the ligand-binding pocket of σ1R [ 29 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The E102Q mutation abolishes the negatively charged cluster located in the linker region between β2 and β3 (residues 98–106, ASLSEYVLL) and alters hydrogen-bonding properties at the junction between the N-terminal helix and the C-terminal domain adjacent to the ligand-binding pocket of σ1R [ 29 ]. This mutation does not impede the binding of ligands to σ1R, as observed in ligand binding assays [ 52 ], but modifies the affinity of σ1R for target proteins and its response to cytosolic calcium levels. It also abolishes the effects of ligand binding on the formation of complexes between σ1R and regulated signaling proteins.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%