Cargando…

Immuno- and Constitutive Proteasomes Do Not Differ in Their Abilities to Degrade Ubiquitinated Proteins

Immunoproteasomes are alternative forms of proteasomes that have an enhanced ability to generate antigenic peptides. Recently, Seifert and colleagues reported surprising observations concerning the functions of immunoproteasomes and cellular responses to interferon-γ: (1) that immunoproteasomes degr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nathan, James A., Spinnenhirn, Valentina, Schmidtke, Gunter, Basler, Michael, Groettrup, Marcus, Goldberg, Alfred L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cell Press 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791394/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23452861
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.01.037
_version_ 1782286712978800640
author Nathan, James A.
Spinnenhirn, Valentina
Schmidtke, Gunter
Basler, Michael
Groettrup, Marcus
Goldberg, Alfred L.
author_facet Nathan, James A.
Spinnenhirn, Valentina
Schmidtke, Gunter
Basler, Michael
Groettrup, Marcus
Goldberg, Alfred L.
author_sort Nathan, James A.
collection PubMed
description Immunoproteasomes are alternative forms of proteasomes that have an enhanced ability to generate antigenic peptides. Recently, Seifert and colleagues reported surprising observations concerning the functions of immunoproteasomes and cellular responses to interferon-γ: (1) that immunoproteasomes degrade ubiquitinated proteins faster than the constitutive proteasomes, (2) that polyubiquitin conjugates accumulate after interferon-γ treatment but then are preferentially degraded by immunoproteasomes, and (3) that immunoproteasome deficiency causes the formation of inclusions and more severe experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE). In contrast, we find that polyubiquitin conjugates do not transiently accumulate following IFNγ-treatment and that immunoproteasomes do not prevent the formation of intracellular inclusions or protect against EAE. Furthermore, purified 26S constitutive and immunoproteasomes bind ubiquitin conjugates similarly and degrade them at similar rates. We conclude that, although immunoproteasomes can increase the generation of peptides appropriate for MHC class I presentation, they do not degrade ubiquitinated proteins more efficiently than constitutive particles.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3791394
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Cell Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37913942013-10-07 Immuno- and Constitutive Proteasomes Do Not Differ in Their Abilities to Degrade Ubiquitinated Proteins Nathan, James A. Spinnenhirn, Valentina Schmidtke, Gunter Basler, Michael Groettrup, Marcus Goldberg, Alfred L. Cell Matters Arising Immunoproteasomes are alternative forms of proteasomes that have an enhanced ability to generate antigenic peptides. Recently, Seifert and colleagues reported surprising observations concerning the functions of immunoproteasomes and cellular responses to interferon-γ: (1) that immunoproteasomes degrade ubiquitinated proteins faster than the constitutive proteasomes, (2) that polyubiquitin conjugates accumulate after interferon-γ treatment but then are preferentially degraded by immunoproteasomes, and (3) that immunoproteasome deficiency causes the formation of inclusions and more severe experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE). In contrast, we find that polyubiquitin conjugates do not transiently accumulate following IFNγ-treatment and that immunoproteasomes do not prevent the formation of intracellular inclusions or protect against EAE. Furthermore, purified 26S constitutive and immunoproteasomes bind ubiquitin conjugates similarly and degrade them at similar rates. We conclude that, although immunoproteasomes can increase the generation of peptides appropriate for MHC class I presentation, they do not degrade ubiquitinated proteins more efficiently than constitutive particles. Cell Press 2013-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3791394/ /pubmed/23452861 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.01.037 Text en © 2013 ELL & Excerpta Medica. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Open Access under CC BY 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) license
spellingShingle Matters Arising
Nathan, James A.
Spinnenhirn, Valentina
Schmidtke, Gunter
Basler, Michael
Groettrup, Marcus
Goldberg, Alfred L.
Immuno- and Constitutive Proteasomes Do Not Differ in Their Abilities to Degrade Ubiquitinated Proteins
title Immuno- and Constitutive Proteasomes Do Not Differ in Their Abilities to Degrade Ubiquitinated Proteins
title_full Immuno- and Constitutive Proteasomes Do Not Differ in Their Abilities to Degrade Ubiquitinated Proteins
title_fullStr Immuno- and Constitutive Proteasomes Do Not Differ in Their Abilities to Degrade Ubiquitinated Proteins
title_full_unstemmed Immuno- and Constitutive Proteasomes Do Not Differ in Their Abilities to Degrade Ubiquitinated Proteins
title_short Immuno- and Constitutive Proteasomes Do Not Differ in Their Abilities to Degrade Ubiquitinated Proteins
title_sort immuno- and constitutive proteasomes do not differ in their abilities to degrade ubiquitinated proteins
topic Matters Arising
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791394/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23452861
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.01.037
work_keys_str_mv AT nathanjamesa immunoandconstitutiveproteasomesdonotdifferintheirabilitiestodegradeubiquitinatedproteins
AT spinnenhirnvalentina immunoandconstitutiveproteasomesdonotdifferintheirabilitiestodegradeubiquitinatedproteins
AT schmidtkegunter immunoandconstitutiveproteasomesdonotdifferintheirabilitiestodegradeubiquitinatedproteins
AT baslermichael immunoandconstitutiveproteasomesdonotdifferintheirabilitiestodegradeubiquitinatedproteins
AT groettrupmarcus immunoandconstitutiveproteasomesdonotdifferintheirabilitiestodegradeubiquitinatedproteins
AT goldbergalfredl immunoandconstitutiveproteasomesdonotdifferintheirabilitiestodegradeubiquitinatedproteins