Structural basis of transmembrane domain interactions in integrin signaling

Cell surface receptors of the integrin family are pivotal to cell adhesion and migration. The activation state of heterodimeric αβ integrins is correlated to the association state of the single-pass α and β transmembrane domains. The association of integrin αIIbβ3 transmembrane domains, resulting in an inactive receptor, is characterized by the asymmetric arrangement of a straight (αIIb) and tilted (β3) helix relative to the membrane in congruence to the dissociated structures. This allows for a continuous association interface centered on helix-helix glycine-packing and an unusual αIIb(GFF) structural motif that packs the conserved Phe-Phe residues against the β3 transmembrane helix, enabling αIIb(D723)β3(R995) electrostatic interactions. The transmembrane complex is further stabilized by the inactive ectodomain, thereby coupling its association state to the ectodomain conformation. In combination with recently determined structures of an inactive integrin ectodomain and an activating talin/β complex that overlap with the αβ transmembrane complex, a comprehensive picture of integrin bi-directional transmembrane signaling has emerged.Key words: cell adhesion, membrane protein, integrin, platelet, transmembrane complex, transmembrane signalingThe communication of biological signals across the plasma membrane is fundamental to cellular function. The ubiquitous family of integrin adhesion receptors exhibits the unusual ability to convey signals bi-directionally (outside-in and inside-out signaling), thereby controlling cell adhesion, migration and differentiation.^1–5 Integrins are Type I heterodimeric receptors that consist of large extracellular domains (>700 residues), single-pass transmembrane (TM) domains, and mostly short cytosolic tails (<70 residues). The activation state of heterodimeric integrins is correlated to the association state of the TM domains of their α and β subunits.^6–10 TM dissociation initiated from the outside results in the transmittal of a signal into the cell, whereas dissociation originating on the inside results in activation of the integrin to bind ligands such as extracellular matrix proteins. The elucidation of the role of the TM domains in integrin-mediated adhesion and signaling has been the subject of extensive research efforts, perhaps commencing with the demonstration that the highly conserved GFFKR sequence motif of α subunits (Fig. 1), which closely follows the first charged residue on the intracellular face, αIIb(K989), constrains the receptor to a default low affinity state.¹¹ Despite these efforts, an understanding of this sequence motif had not been reached until such time as the structure of the αIIb TM segment was determined.¹² In combination with the structure of the β3 TM segment¹³ and available mutagenesis data,^6,9,10,14,15 this has allowed the first correct prediction of the overall association of an integrin αβ TM complex.¹² The predicted association was subsequently confirmed by the αIIbβ3 complex structure determined in phospholipid bicelles,¹⁶ as well as by the report of a similar structure based on molecular modeling using disulfide-based structural constraints.¹⁷ In addition to the structures of the dissociated and associated αβ TM domains, their membrane embedding was defined^{12,13,16,18,19} and it was experimentally recognized that, in the context of the native receptor, the TM complex is stabilized by the inactive, resting ectodomain.¹⁶ These advances in integrin membrane structural biology are complemented by the recent structures of a resting integrin ectodomain and an activating talin/β cytosolic tail complex that overlap with the αβ TM complex,^20,21 allowing detailed insight into integrin bi-directional TM signaling.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Amino acid sequence of integrin αIIb and β3 transmembrane segments and flanking regions. Membrane-embedded residues^{12,13,16,18,19} are enclosed by a gray box. Residues 991–995 constitute the highly conserved GFFKR sequence motif of integrin α subunits.     

Cell Migration from Baby to Mother

Fetal cells migrate into the mother during pregnancy. Fetomaternal transfer probably occurs in all pregnancies and in humans the fetal cells can persist for decades. Microchimeric fetal cells are found in various maternal tissues and organs including blood, bone marrow, skin and liver. In mice, fetal cells have also been found in the brain. The fetal cells also appear to target sites of injury. Fetomaternal microchimerism may have important implications for the immune status of women, influencing autoimmunity and tolerance to transplants. Further understanding of the ability of fetal cells to cross both the placental and blood-brain barriers, to migrate into diverse tissues, and to differentiate into multiple cell types may also advance strategies for intravenous transplantation of stem cells for cytotherapeutic repair. Here we discuss hypotheses for how fetal cells cross the placental and blood-brain barriers and the persistence and distribution of fetal cells in the mother.Key Words: fetomaternal microchimerism, stem cells, progenitor cells, placental barrier, blood-brain barrier, adhesion, migrationMicrochimerism is the presence of a small population of genetically distinct and separately derived cells within an individual. This commonly occurs following transfusion or transplantation.^1–3 Microchimerism can also occur between mother and fetus. Small numbers of cells traffic across the placenta during pregnancy. This exchange occurs both from the fetus to the mother (fetomaternal)^4–7 and from the mother to the fetus.^8–10 Similar exchange may also occur between monochorionic twins in utero.^11–13 There is increasing evidence that fetomaternal microchimerism persists lifelong in many child-bearing women.^7,14 The significance of fetomaternal microchimerism remains unclear. It could be that fetomaternal microchimerism is an epiphenomenon of pregnancy. Alternatively, it could be a mechanism by which the fetus ensures maternal fitness in order to enhance its own chances of survival. In either case, the occurrence of pregnancy-acquired microchimerism in women may have implications for graft survival and autoimmunity. More detailed understanding of the biology of microchimeric fetal cells may also advance progress towards cytotherapeutic repair via intravenous transplantation of stem or progenitor cells.Trophoblasts were the first zygote-derived cell type found to cross into the mother. In 1893, Schmorl reported the appearance of trophoblasts in the maternal pulmonary vasculature.¹⁵ Later, trophoblasts were also observed in the maternal circulation.^16–20 Subsequently various other fetal cell types derived from fetal blood were also found in the maternal circulation.^21,22 These fetal cell types included lymphocytes,²³ erythroblasts or nucleated red blood cells,^24,25 haematopoietic progenitors^7,26,27 and putative mesenchymal progenitors.^14,28 While it has been suggested that small numbers of fetal cells traffic across the placenta in every human pregnancy,^29–31 trophoblast release does not appear to occur in all pregnancies.³² Likewise, in mice, fetal cells have also been reported in maternal blood.^33,34 In the mouse, fetomaternal transfer also appears to occur during all pregnancies.³⁵     

Plant defensins: Defense,development and application

Plant defensins are small, highly stable, cysteine-rich peptides that constitute a part of the innate immune system primarily directed against fungal pathogens. Biological activities reported for plant defensins include antifungal activity, antibacterial activity, proteinase inhibitory activity and insect amylase inhibitory activity. Plant defensins have been shown to inhibit infectious diseases of humans and to induce apoptosis in a human pathogen. Transgenic plants overexpressing defensins are strongly resistant to fungal pathogens. Based on recent studies, some plant defensins are not merely toxic to microbes but also have roles in regulating plant growth and development.Key words: defensin, antifungal, antimicrobial peptide, development, innate immunityDefensins are diverse members of a large family of cationic host defence peptides (HDP), widely distributed throughout the plant and animal kingdoms.^1–3 Defensins and defensin-like peptides are functionally diverse, disrupting microbial membranes and acting as ligands for cellular recognition and signaling.⁴ In the early 1990s, the first members of the family of plant defensins were isolated from wheat and barley grains.^5,6 Those proteins were originally called γ-thionins because their size (∼5 kDa, 45 to 54 amino acids) and cysteine content (typically 4, 6 or 8 cysteine residues) were found to be similar to the thionins.⁷ Subsequent “γ-thionins” homologous proteins were indentified and cDNAs were cloned from various monocot or dicot seeds.⁸ Terras and his colleagues⁹ isolated two antifungal peptides, Rs-AFP1 and Rs-AFP2, noticed that the plant peptides'' structural and functional properties resemble those of insect and mammalian defensins, and therefore termed the family of peptides “plant defensins” in 1995. Sequences of more than 80 different plant defensin genes from different plant species were analyzed.¹⁰ A query of the UniProt database (www.uniprot.org/) currently reveals publications of 371 plant defensins available for review. The Arabidopsis genome alone contains more than 300 defensin-like (DEFL) peptides, 78% of which have a cysteine-stabilized α-helix β-sheet (CSαβ) motif common to plant and invertebrate defensins.¹¹ In addition, over 1,000 DEFL genes have been identified from plant EST projects.¹²Unlike the insect and mammalian defensins, which are mainly active against bacteria,^2,3,10,13 plant defensins, with a few exceptions, do not have antibacterial activity.¹⁴ Most plant defensins are involved in defense against a broad range of fungi.^2,3,10,15 They are not only active against phytopathogenic fungi (such as Fusarium culmorum and Botrytis cinerea), but also against baker''s yeast and human pathogenic fungi (such as Candida albicans).² Plant defensins have also been shown to inhibit the growth of roots and root hairs in Arabidopsis thaliana¹⁶ and alter growth of various tomato organs which can assume multiple functions related to defense and development.⁴     

RALFs: Peptide regulators of plant growth

Peptide signaling regulates a variety of developmental processes and environmental responses in plants.^1–6 For example, the peptide systemin induces the systemic defense response in tomato⁷ and defensins are small cysteine-rich proteins that are involved in the innate immune system of plants.^8,9 The CLAVATA3 peptide regulates meristem size¹⁰ and the SCR peptide is the pollen self-incompatibility recognition factor in the Brassicaceae.^11,12 LURE peptides produced by synergid cells attract pollen tubes to the embryo sac.⁹ RALFs are a recently discovered family of plant peptides that play a role in plant cell growth.Key words: peptide, growth factor, alkalinization     

Neutralization of Clostridium difficile toxin A using antibody combinations

The pathogenicity of Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) is mediated by the release of two toxins, A and B. Both toxins contain large clusters of repeats known as cell wall binding (CWB) domains responsible for binding epithelial cell surfaces. Several murine monoclonal antibodies were generated against the CWB domain of toxin A and screened for their ability to neutralize the toxin individually and in combination. Three antibodies capable of neutralizing toxin A all recognized multiple sites on toxin A, suggesting that the extent of surface coverage may contribute to neutralization. Combination of two noncompeting antibodies, denoted 3358 and 3359, enhanced toxin A neutralization over saturating levels of single antibodies. Antibody 3358 increased the level of detectable CWB domain on the surface of cells, while 3359 inhibited CWB domain cell surface association. These results suggest that antibody combinations that cover a broader epitope space on the CWB repeat domains of toxin A (and potentially toxin B) and utilize multiple mechanisms to reduce toxin internalization may provide enhanced protection against C. difficile-associated diarrhea.Key words: Clostridium difficile, toxin neutralization, therapeutic antibody, cell wall binding domains, repeat proteins, CROPs, mAb combinationThe most common cause of nosocomial antibiotic-associated diarrhea is the gram-positive, spore-forming anaerobic bacillus Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). Infection can be asymptomatic or lead to acute diarrhea, colitis, and in severe instances, pseudomembranous colitis and toxic megacolon.^1,2The pathological effects of C. difficile have long been linked to two secreted toxins, A and B.^3,4 Some strains, particularly the virulent and antibiotic-resistant strain 027 with toxinotype III, also produce a binary toxin whose significance in the pathogenicity and severity of disease is still unclear.⁵ Early studies including in vitro cell-killing assays and ex vivo models indicated that toxin A is more toxigenic than toxin B; however, recent gene manipulation studies and the emergence of virulent C. difficile strains that do not express significant levels of toxin A (termed “A⁻ B⁺”) suggest a critical role for toxin B in pathogenicity.^6,7Toxins A and B are large multidomain proteins with high homology to one another. The N-terminal region of both toxins enzymatically glucosylates small GTP binding proteins including Rho, Rac and CDC42,^8,9 leading to altered actin expression and the disruption of cytoskeletal integrity.^9,10 The C-terminal region of both toxins is composed of 20 to 30 residue repeats known as the clostridial repetitive oligopeptides (CROPs) or cell wall binding (CWB) domains due to their homology to the repeats of Streptococcus pneumoniae LytA,^11–14 and is responsible for cell surface recognition and endocytosis.^12,15–17C. difficile-associated diarrhea is often, but not always, induced by antibiotic clearance of the normal intestinal flora followed by mucosal C. difficile colonization resulting from preexisting antibiotic resistant C. difficile or concomitant exposure to C. difficile spores, particularly in hospitals. Treatments for C. difficile include administration of metronidazole or vancomycin.^2,18 These agents are effective; however, approximately 20% of patients relapse. Resistance of C. difficile to these antibiotics is also an emerging issue^19,20 and various non-antibiotic treatments are under investigation.^20–25Because hospital patients who contract C. difficile and remain asymptomatic have generally mounted strong antibody responses to the toxins,^26,27 active or passive immunization approaches are considered hopeful avenues of treatment for the disease. Toxins A and B have been the primary targets for immunization approaches.^20,28–33 Polyclonal antibodies against toxins A and B, particularly those that recognize the CWB domains, have been shown to effectively neutralize the toxins and inhibit morbidity in rodent infection models.³¹ Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against the CWB domains of the toxins have also demonstrated neutralizing capabilities; however, their activity in cell-based assays is significantly weaker than that observed for polyclonal antibody mixtures.^33–36We investigated the possibility of creating a cocktail of two or more neutralizing mAbs that target the CWB domain of toxin A with the goal of synthetically re-creating the superior neutralization properties of polyclonal antibody mixtures. Using the entire CWB domain of toxin A, antibodies were raised in rodents and screened for their ability to neutralize toxin A in a cell-based assay. Two mAbs, 3358 and 3359, that (1) both independently demonstrated marginal neutralization behavior and (2) did not cross-block one another from binding toxin A were identified. We report here that 3358 and 3359 use differing mechanisms to modify CWB-domain association with CHO cell surfaces and combine favorably to reduce toxin A-mediated cell lysis.     

Why have chloroplasts developed a unique motility system?

Organelle movement in plants is dependent on actin filaments with most of the organelles being transported along the actin cables by class XI myosins. Although chloroplast movement is also actin filament-dependent, a potential role of myosin motors in this process is poorly understood. Interestingly, chloroplasts can move in any direction and change the direction within short time periods, suggesting that chloroplasts use the newly formed actin filaments rather than preexisting actin cables. Furthermore, the data on myosin gene knockouts and knockdowns in Arabidopsis and tobacco do not support myosins'' XI role in chloroplast movement. Our recent studies revealed that chloroplast movement and positioning are mediated by the short actin filaments localized at chloroplast periphery (cp-actin filaments) rather than cytoplasmic actin cables. The accumulation of cp-actin filaments depends on kinesin-like proteins, KAC1 and KAC2, as well as on a chloroplast outer membrane protein CHUP1. We propose that plants evolved a myosin XI-independent mechanism of the actin-based chloroplast movement that is distinct from the mechanism used by other organelles.Key words: actin, Arabidopsis, blue light, kinesin, myosin, organelle movement, phototropinOrganelle movement and positioning are pivotal aspects of the intracellular dynamics in most eukaryotes. Although plants are sessile organisms, their organelles are quickly repositioned in response to fluctuating environmental conditions and certain endogenous signals. By and large, plant organelle movements and positioning are dependent on actin filaments, although microtubules play certain accessory roles in organelle dynamics.^1,2 Actin inhibitors effectively retard the movements of mitochondria,^3–6 peroxisomes,^5,7–11 Golgi stacks,^12,13 endoplasmic reticulum (ER),^14,15 and nuclei.^16–18 These organelles are co-aligned and associated with actin filaments.^{5,7,8,10–12,15,18} Recent progress in this field started to reveal the molecular motility system responsible for the organelle transport in plants.¹⁹Chloroplast movement is among the most fascinating models of organelle movement in plants because it is precisely controlled by ambient light conditions.^20,21 Weak light induces chloroplast accumulation response so that chloroplasts can capture photosynthetic light efficiently (Fig. 1A). Strong light induces chloroplast avoidance response to escape from photodamage (Fig. 1B).²² The blue light-induced chloroplast movement is mediated by the blue light receptor phototropin (phot). In some cryptogam plants, the red light-induced chloroplast movement is regulated by a chimeric phytochrome/phototropin photoreceptor neochrome.^23–25 In a model plant Arabidopsis, phot1 and phot2 function redundantly to regulate the accumulation response,²⁶ whereas phot2 alone is essential for the avoidance response.^27,28 Several additional factors regulating chloroplast movement were identified by analyses of Arabidopsis mutants deficient in chloroplast photorelocation.^29–32 In particular, identification of CHUP1 (chloroplast unusual positioning 1) revealed the connection between chloroplasts and actin filaments at the molecular level.²⁹ CHUP1 is a chloroplast outer membrane protein capable of interacting with F-actin, G-actin and profilin in vitro.^29,33,34 The chup1 mutant plants are defective in both the chloroplast movement and chloroplast anchorage to the plasma membrane,^22,29,33 suggesting that CHUP1 plays an important role in linking chloroplasts to the plasma membrane through the actin filaments. However, how chloroplasts move using the actin filaments and whether chloroplast movement utilizes the actin-based motility system similar to other organelle movements remained to be determined.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic distribution patterns of chloroplasts in a palisade cell under different light conditions, weak (A) and strong (B) lights. Shown as a side view of mid-part of the cell and a top view with three different levels (i.e., top, middle and bottom of the cell). The cell was irradiated from the leaf surface shown as arrows. Weak light induces chloroplast accumulation response (A) and strong light induces the avoidance response (B).Here, we review the recent findings pointing to existence of a novel actin-based mechanisms for chloroplast movement and discuss the differences between the mechanism responsible for movement of chloroplasts and other organelles.     

Timing the switch to phototrophic growth: A possible role of GUN1

In young Arabidopsis seedlings, retrograde signaling from plastids regulates the expression of photosynthesis-associated nuclear genes in response to the developmental and functional state of the chloroplasts. The chloroplast-located PPR protein GUN1 is required for signalling following disruption of plastid protein synthesis early in seedling development before full photosynthetic competence has been achieved. Recently we showed that sucrose repression and the correct temporal expression of LHCB1, encoding a light-harvesting chlorophyll protein associated with photosystem II, are perturbed in gun1 mutant seedlings.¹ Additionally, we demonstrated that in gun1 seedlings anthocyanin accumulation and the expression of the “early” anthocyanin-biosynthesis genes is perturbed. Early seedling development, predominantly at the stage of hypocotyl elongation and cotyledon expansion, is also affected in gun1 seedlings in response to sucrose, ABA and disruption of plastid protein synthesis by lincomycin. These findings indicate a central role for GUN1 in plastid, sucrose and ABA signalling in early seedling development.Key words: ABA, ABI4, anthocyanin, chloroplast, GUN1, retrograde signalling, sucroseArabidopsis seedlings develop in response to light and other environmental cues. In young seedlings, development is fuelled by mobilization of lipid reserves until chloroplast biogenesis is complete and the seedlings can make the transition to phototrophic growth. The majority of proteins with functions related to photosynthesis are encoded by the nuclear genome, and their expression is coordinated with the expression of genes in the chloroplast genome. In developing seedlings, retrograde signaling from chloroplasts to the nucleus regulates the expression of these nuclear genes and is dependent on the developmental and functional status of the chloroplast. Two classes of gun (genomes uncoupled) mutants defective in retrograde signalling have been identified in Arabidopsis: the first, which comprises gun2–gun5, involves mutations in genes encoding components of tetrapyrrole biosynthesis.^2,3 The other comprises gun1, which has mutations in a nuclear gene encoding a plastid-located pentatricopeptide repeat (PPR) protein with an SMR (small MutS-related) domain near the C-terminus.^4,5 PPR proteins are known to have roles in RNA processing⁶ and the SMR domain of GUN1 has been shown to bind DNA,⁴ but the specific functions of these domains in GUN1 are not yet established. However, GUN1 has been shown to be involved in plastid gene expression-dependent,⁷ redox,⁴ ABA1,⁴ and sucrose signaling,^1,4,8 as well as light quality and intensity sensing pathways.^9–11 In addition, GUN1 has been shown to influence anthocyanin biosynthesis, hypocotyl extension and cotyledon expansion.^1,11     

Analysis of LuPME3, a pectin methylesterase from Linum usitatissimum,revealed a variability in PME proteolytic maturation

Pectin methylesterase (PME) catalyzes the de-methylesterification of pectin in plant cell walls during cell elongation.¹ Pectins are mainly composed of α(1, 4)-D-galacturonosyl acid units that are synthesized in a methylesterified form in the Golgi apparatus to prevent any interaction with Ca²⁺ ions during their intracellular transport.² The highly methylesterified pectins are then secreted into the apoplasm³ and subsequently de-methylesterified in muro by PMEs. This can either induce the formation of pectin gels through the Ca²⁺ crosslinking of neighboring non-methylesterified chains or create substrates for pectin-degrading enzymes such as polygalacturonases and pectate lyases for the initiation of cell wall loosening.⁴ PMEs belong to a large multigene family. Sixty­six PME-related genes are predicted in the Arabidopsis genome.¹ Among them, we have recently shown that AtPME3 (At3g14310), a major basic PME isoform in A. thaliana, is ubiquitously expressed in vascular tissues and play a role in adventitious rooting.⁵ In flax (Linum usitatissimum), three genes encoding PMEs have been sequenced so far, including LuPME3, the ortholog of AtPME3. Analysis of the LuPME3 isoform brings new insights into the processing of these proteins.     

Neurotensin receptor 1 immunoreactivity in the peripheral ganglia and carotid body

In the present study we investigated, through immunohistochemistry, the presence and location of neurotensin receptor 1 (NTR1) in the peripheral ganglia and carotid body of 16 humans and 5 rats. In both humans and rats, NTR1 immunostained ganglion cells were found in superior cervical ganglia (57.4±11.6% and 72.4±11.4%, respectively, p<0.05), enteric ganglia (51.9±10.4% and 64.6±6.1%, p<0.05), sensory ganglia (69.2±10.7% and 73.0±13.1%, p>0.05) and parasympathetic ganglia (52.1±14.1% and 59.4±14.0%, p>0.05), supporting a modulatory role for NT in these ganglia. Positivity was also detected in 45.6±9.2% and 50.8±6.8% of human and rat type I glomic cells, respectively, whereas type II cells were negative. Our findings suggest that NT produced by type I cells acts in an autocrine or paracrine way on the same cell type, playing a modulatory role on chemoception.Key words: neurotensin receptor 1, carotid body, autonomic ganglia, sensory ganglia, immunohistochemistry.Neurotensin (NT) is a tridecapeptide which was first isolated from bovine hypothalamus (Carraway and Leeman, 1973) and is widely distributed in the nervous system and intestine. In the nervous system, neurotensin acts as a neurotransmitter and neuromodulator (Dobner, 2006); in the periphery, as a paracrine or endocrine factor (Mazzocchi et al., 1997; Malendowicz, 1998). It also acts as a growth factor on various cell types (Malendowicz, 1993; Markowska et al., 1994a, 1994b; Evers, 2006).Three different NT receptors, termed NTR1, NTR2 and NTR3, have been identified and cloned to date. NTR1 and NTR2 are, respectively, high- and low-affinity seven trans-membrane domain G protein-coupled receptors. NTR3 is a high-affinity single trans-membrane domain type 1 receptor, with 100% homology with the sorting protein, gp95/sortilin (Kitabgi, 2006; Mazella et al., 1998). NTR3 can also form heterodimers with NTR1 in the plasma membrane (Martin et al., 2002). Nuclear internalization of the NTR1 has been reported and has been suggested to play a role in the production of long-term genomic effects (Feldberg et al., 1998; Laduron, 1992). It has also been reported that NTR2, but not NTR1, returns to the plasma membrane after NT-induced sequestration (Mazella and Vincent, 2006).In the peripheral nervous system, pregangliar fibers containing NT have been found in sympathetic, parasympathetic and enteric ganglia, and functional studies also suggest the expression of NTRs in ganglion cells. However, direct evidence of NTR1 protein expression in the different cell types of the ganglia has not yet been provided for human and rat. Only in rat dorsal root ganglia has evidence of NTR1 expression been given through hybridization in situ (Zhang et al., 1995), but there are no data on protein location or internalization.The carotid body is an arterial chemoreceptor, sensitive to reductions in partial blood oxygen pressure and pH and to increases in partial CO2 pressure, the stimulation of which induces increases in ventilatory frequency and volume.The carotid body is situated at the carotid bifurcation, and is composed of parenchymal lobules separated by connective tissue, in which afferent fibers of the glossopharyngeal nerve, arising from the petrosal ganglion, occur (Porzionato et al., 2005).Two different cell populations are present in the carotid body: type I cells, in turn separated into light, dark and pyknotic, and type II cells, at the edges of the clusters. Post-ganglionic sympathetic nerve fibers from the superior cervical ganglion are present, innervating blood vessels and type I cells, and preganglionic parasympathetic and sympathetic fibers reaching ganglion cells near the glomic cells. NT has been detected in glomic cells (Heath et al., 1988; Heym and Kummer, 1989; Smith et al., 1990) but the presence of the corresponding receptors in the various glomic cell types has not yet been investigated.Thus, the aim of the present study was to investigate, through immunohistochemistry, the presence and location of NTR1 in the peripheral ganglia and carotid body of both human and rat, with particular reference to the different cell types.     

The motors of protein import into chloroplasts

Chloroplast function is largely dependent on its resident proteins, most of which are encoded by the nuclear genome and are synthesized in cytosol. Almost all of these are imported through the translocons located in the outer and inner chloroplast envelope membranes. The motor protein that provides the driving force for protein import has been proposed to be Hsp93, a member of the Hsp100 family of chaperones residing in the stroma. Combining in vivo and in vitro approaches, recent publications have provided multiple lines of evidence demonstrating that a stromal Hsp70 system is also involved in protein import into this organelle. Thus it appears that protein import into chloroplasts is driven by two motor proteins, Hsp93 and Hsp70. A perspective on collaboration between these two chaperones is discussed.Key words: stromal Hsp70, chloroplast protein import, stromal motor complex, ATPase, Physcomitrella patens, Hsp93, Toc, Tic, transit peptide, translocationChloroplasts are plant and algal specific organelles where photosynthesis and many other cellular processes take place. Chloroplasts contain ∼3,000 proteins,^1,2 with about 100 encoded by the chloroplast genome. In other words, more than 90% of chloroplast proteins are encoded by nuclear genes, synthesized in the cytosol and post-translationally imported into plastids. Most imported proteins are synthesized as precursors with a cleavable N-terminal signal, called a transit peptide. Such precursors are recognized by receptors in the outer envelope membrane, translocated through translocons in the outer and inner envelope membranes of chloroplasts (Toc and Tic), and processed to either their mature- or intermediate-sized forms in the chloroplast stroma.^3–8 Thylakoid proteins are further transported to their final destinations via one of four pathways, the cpSec, cpSRP, cpTAT and spontaneous pathways.^9–11 It is believed that the precursors are translocated across the envelope membranes in at least partially unfolded conformations and that the import machinery possesses some degree of unfolding activity.¹²Three proteins make up the core Toc complex, Toc159, Toc34 and Toc75. The Toc159 and Toc34 proteins are receptors possessing GTPase activities and recognizing transit peptides. Toc75 is a ß-barrel protein that forms the protein-translocating channel across the outer envelope membrane.¹³ The Tic complex is also formed from multiple subunits. Tic110, Tic21 and Tic20 have each been suggested to function as the channel of the Tic complex.^14–16 A ternary complex containing the stroma-facing domain of Tic110, Tic40 and a stromal factor, Hsp93 (a member of the Hsp100 family, possessing two ATPase domains), interacts with incoming precursor proteins.^17–26 Hsp93 has been proposed to serve as the import motor.²⁷ Other Tic components include regulatory subunits Tic62, Tic55 and Tic32 that are purported to facilitate redox- and calcium/calmodulin-dependent precursor translocation across the inner envelope membrane (reviewed in ref. ³). Tic22 is a peripheral membrane protein associated with the inner envelope and exposed to the intermembrane space.²⁸ It is suggested that Tic22 connects the Toc and Tic translocons during protein import.