Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada H3A 2B2
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The activity of the ubiquitin-dependent proteolytic system in differentiated tissues under basal conditions remains poorly explored. We measured rates of ubiquitination in rat tissue extracts. Accumulation of ubiquitinated proteins increased in the presence of ubiquitin aldehyde, indicating that deubiquitinating enzymes can regulate ubiquitination. Rates of ubiquitination varied fourfold, with the highest rate in the testis. We tested whether ubiquitin-activating enzyme (E1) or ubiquitin-conjugating enzymes (E2s) could be limiting for conjugation. Immunodepletion of the E2s UBC2 or UBC4 lowered rates of conjugation similarly. Supplementation of extracts with excess UBC2 or UBC4, but not E1, stimulated conjugation. However, UBC2-stimulated rates of ubiquitination still differed among tissues, indicating that tissue differences in E3s or substrate availability may also be rate controlling. UBC2 and UBC4 stimulated conjugation half-maximally at concentrations of 10-50 and 28-44 nM, respectively. Endogenous tissue levels of UBC2, but not UBC4, appeared saturating for conjugation, suggesting that in vivo modulation of UBC4 levels can likely control ubiquitin conjugation. Thus the pool of ubiquitin conjugates and therefore the rate of degradation of proteins by this system may be controlled by E2s, E3s, and isopeptidases. The regulation of the ubiquitin pathway appears complex, but precise.
proteolysis; proteasome; deubiquitinating enzymes; isopeptidases
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
THE
UBIQUITIN-DEPENDENT proteolytic pathway is the major nonlysosomal
degradative system in the eukaryotic cell (10). In this
proteolytic pathway, ubiquitin, an 8-kDa polypeptide, is ligated via
its COOH-terminus to -amino groups of lysine residues on target
proteins. Additional ubiquitin moieties can be coupled by similar
isopeptide linkages to lysine residues of the previously attached
ubiquitin moiety to form polyubiquitin chains linked to the substrate.
This branched-chain polyubiquitination marks proteins for degradation
by a 1,500-kDa multisubunit protease, the 26S proteasome
(2). Conjugation of ubiquitin involves a sequence of
reactions (11). Ubiquitin is first activated by ubiquitin-activating enzyme (E1) in an ATP-hydrolyzing reaction that
initially results in formation of a ubiquitin adenylate intermediate bound to the enzyme. The ubiquitin is then transferred to the active
site cysteine in the form of a thiolester linkage, and the AMP is
released (7). E1 then transfers the activated ubiquitin to
one of a family of ubiquitin-conjugating enzymes (E2), which also forms
a thiolester linkage between the active site cysteine and the ubiquitin
(8). E2s then support conjugation to substrates in
conjunction with a third protein, ubiquitin-protein ligase (E3). E3s
recognize specific substrates (21, 28). Individual E2s
appear to act with specific E3s and therefore also have an important
though indirect role in substrate selectivity. The E2s either transfer
ubiquitin to the cysteine residue of specific E3s (24) or
ubiquitinate substrate when bound to the E3 as an E2-E3-substrate
complex (23). The ubiquitin-protein conjugate can either
be deconjugated of ubiquitin by isopeptidases (29) or degraded.
Because only selected proteins are recognized by E3s and targeted for degradation in this pathway, this degradative system performs specific intracellular functions. Indeed, a growing body of literature has now identified numerous functions for this pathway, which include regulation of the cell cycle (14), DNA repair (13), antigen processing (17), and mediation of the inflammatory response (20). Many of these functions would take place in specialized cells under particular conditions. However, the activities of this pathway in differentiated tissues in basal states remain unclear. Furthermore, the relative contributions of different E2s to this basal activity of the ubiquitin system remain undefined.
The mechanisms of regulation of this pathway also remain unclear. Previous studies have shown regulation of polyubiquitin genes and proteasome subunits (18), but the effects of these changes on actual flux through the pathway remain unknown. A simple model of regulation would be one in which degradation by the proteasome is dependent on the availability of its substrate, ubiquitinated proteins (4). The availability of ubiquitinated proteins is in turn dependent on the balance between the rate of conjugation and the rate of deubiquitination. We had previously hypothesized that the conjugation reaction mediated by E2s and E3s may be a rate-controlling step in this proteolytic pathway (31). In support of this, we have observed regulation of various E2s. For example, the 14-kDa E2 (E214k) gene expression in skeletal muscle increases when ATP-dependent proteolysis is activated (31) and can be regulated by insulin and insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I; see Ref. 32). The 20-kDa E2 (E220k) is regulated during erythroid development (27). Finally, there is induction of UBC4 isoforms at various stages of spermatid development (22). Both of these developmental processes are characterized by high levels of protein degradation as the cells mature to their highly specialized forms. E3s are less well characterized. Nonetheless, there is some evidence of regulation at this level. For example, phosphorylation of the cyclosome (anaphase-promoting complex) appears to be required for its activation to a form that can degrade mitotic cyclins (15). In addition, regulated expression of the F-box substrate recognition component of the SCF family of E3s permits temporal regulation of ubiquitination of substrates identified by these F-box proteins. The ability of isopeptidases to control levels of ubiquitinated proteins remains poorly explored. However, overexpression of a deubiquitinating enzyme can downregulate the size of the pool of ubiquitinated proteins (19), and inactivation of the gene encoding a deubiquitinating enzyme has increased the pool (16).
To explore the mechanisms for controlling ubiquitin conjugation more carefully, we have measured rates of ubiquitination of proteins in extracts prepared from different tissues. It has previously been shown that the E214k isoform of the UBC2 subfamily of E2s (5) and UBC4 (3, 35) are capable of supporting conjugation to endogenous proteins in extracts. Therefore, we have determined the relative roles that the UBC2 and UBC4 families of E2s play in this basal conjugation. Furthermore, we have determined whether E2 activities may be limiting for conjugation and have explored whether deubiquitinating activities can also play a role in regulation of steady-state levels of ubiquitinated proteins.
![]() |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Preparation of tissue extracts.
Male Sprague-Dawley rats (Charles River Laboratories) weighing
175-200 g were fed ad libitum. After death of the rats by
decapitation under anesthesia, the indicated tissues were isolated
quickly and homogenized using a Potter-Elvehjem homogenizer (Polytron tissue disruptor for heart and skeletal muscles) in 50 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 1 mM dithiothreitol (DTT), 0.25 M sucrose, 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM
phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 10 µg/ml pepstatin A, and 10 µg/ml
leupeptin at 4°C (5 ml/g tissue). The homogenates were centrifuged at
10,000 g for 10 min, and the supernatant was centrifuged at
100,000 g for 60 min. The final supernatants were stored at 80°C until use.
Reagents.
5'-Adenylylimidodiphosphate (AMPPNP) was obtained from Roche. Ubiquitin
aldehyde was synthesized as previously described (30). All
other reagents were obtained from Sigma. Ubiquitin was iodinated to a
specific activity of >3,000 counts · min1
(cpm) · pmol
1 by the chloramine-T method, as
previously described (1). E1 was purified from rabbit
liver by ubiquitin affinity chromatography (5).
Recombinant UBC4-11 was prepared and
purified as previously described (35). MG-132 was a gift
from Proscript.
Assays.
Purified E1 and E2 activities were quantitated either by burst assays
in which the release of [32P]pyrophosphate is measured
after incubation with ubiquitin and [-32P]ATP
(9) or by thiolester assays in which the incorporation of
125I-labeled ubiquitin into E1 and E2s is measured
(11). Protein was measured by the Bradford assay using BSA
as a standard. Rates of ubiquitination of tissue proteins were
determined by incubation of extracts containing 50 µg of tissue
protein with 50 mM Tris (pH 7.5), 1 mM DTT, 2 mM MgCl2, 2 mM AMPPNP, and 5 µM 125I-ubiquitin (>3,000 cpm/pmol) in
a total volume of 20 µl at 37°C. Reaction times were 10 min for
brain, lung, heart, liver, and testis extracts and 20 min for kidney,
gastrocnemius, and tibialis anterior extracts. Pilot studies determined
that conjugation rates were linear for these time periods and that the
concentration of exogenous labeled ubiquitin was in significant excess
of any endogenous ubiquitin (i.e., addition of larger amounts of
radiolabeled ubiquitin did not increase rates of ubiquitination). In
most reactions, the deubiquitinating enzyme inhibitor, ubiquitin
aldehyde, was added, since data (Fig. 1)
demonstrated that the ubiquitinated protein products in the reactions
were being disassembled by these deubiquitinating enzymes. Pilot
studies were done to determine the concentrations of ubiquitin aldehyde
that provided maximal accumulation of ubiquitinated proteins (1.5 µM
for the gastrocnemius and liver, 6 µM for the testis, and 3 µM for
all other tissues). After incubation, conjugated ubiquitin was resolved
from free ubiquitin by SDS-PAGE on 10% gels and visually confirmed by
autoradiography. The gels were stained with Coomassie blue to precisely
identify the lanes. After drying of the gel, lanes were cut out to
measure the incorporated radioactivity by gamma counting.
|
Antibodies and immunoprecipitations. Polyclonal anti-UBC2 and anti-UBC4 antibodies were prepared in rabbits using Freund's adjuvant and were affinity purified on agarose columns (Bio-Rad Affigel) to which purified E214k or the UBC4-1 isoform of the UBC4 family (22) had been coupled. To immunodeplete extracts of the indicated E2s, 2 ml of affinity-purified antibodies or an equivalent quantity (16 µg) of nonimmune IgG (control) was mixed with 30 µl of a 50% slurry of protein A-Sepharose (Pharmacia) and incubated overnight with mixing at 4°C. The next day, the Sepharose beads bound with antibodies were recovered by brief centrifugation at 10,000 g. The pellets were then mixed with 100 µl of tissue extract containing 370 µg protein and were mixed for 4 h at 4°C. After centrifugation at 10,000 g for 1 min, aliquots of the supernatants were assayed for ubiquitination activity as above or blotted for the E2s to confirm efficiency and specificity of the immunoprecipitation. Immunoblotting of the supernatants and pellets confirmed that the antibodies were specific for the particular E2s and were able to immunoprecipitate >95% of the E2s in the extracts. Quantitation of the UBC2 and UBC4 levels in the various tissues was by immunoblotting with the above antibodies. 125I-goat anti-rabbit IgG was used as a secondary antibody, and the signals were quantitated by densitometry. Various quantities of purified E214k and UBC4-1, whose concentrations had been determined by absorbance spectrophotometry, were loaded in parallel and used as standards for the assays. To estimate tissue concentrations of the E2s, the volumes of freshly isolated tissues were measured before fractionation, as described above. From quantitation of total protein in the soluble fraction, the above immunochemical quantitation of E2 levels in the soluble extracts (expressed per mg tissue protein), and estimation of cytoplasmic volume as 50% of total tissue volume, the tissue concentrations of E2s were determined. The small size of the tibialis anterior muscle did not permit accurate determination of tissue volume.
Statistical analyses. One-way ANOVA was used to compare means of multiple samples. Apparent Michaelis constants (Km) of E2s were determined by measuring rates of conjugation at various concentrations of the relevant E2 (calculated from summing the endogenous and the supplemented amounts of the E2) and fitting the data to the function f = c + Vm[S]/(Km + [S]), where c is the basal rate of conjugation in the absence of that particular E2, [S] is the concentration of the E2, and Vm is the rate at saturating concentrations of [S].
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Rates of ubiquitination in tissue extracts. To determine whether different tissues manifest different rates of ubiquitination of proteins, soluble extracts were prepared and incubated with an excess of radiolabeled ubiquitin (Fig. 1). There was an approximately threefold difference among the tissues in rates of accumulation of ubiquitin-protein conjugates. Theoretically, steady-state levels of ubiquitinated proteins can be influenced not only by the rate of conjugation but also by the rate of loss of ubiquitinated proteins, either through degradation by the proteasome or deubiquitination by isopeptidases. Because in our assays we used AMPPNP, which can support activation of ubiquitin by E1 but not degradation by the proteasome (which hydrolyses ATP to ADP), levels of conjugates in our assays are unlikely to be influenced by proteasome activity. Indeed, addition of the proteasome inhibitor MG-132 to the extracts had no significant effect on the rate of accumulation of ubiquitinated proteins (data not shown). We therefore tested the effect of an inhibitor of deubiquitinating enzymes on the rates of ubiquitination in the different tissue extracts. Addition of ubiquitin aldehyde, an inhibitor of most deubiquitinating enzymes (12), resulted in accumulation of ubiquitinated proteins, indicating that isopeptidases can play a role in controlling levels of conjugates in these extracts. Thus, to more precisely quantitate the rate of conjugation in these extracts, all subsequent assays were done in the presence of ubiquitin aldehyde (Fig. 1). In the presence of ubiquitin aldehyde, the rate of ubiquitination was highest in the testis and approximately fourfold higher than in the other tissues examined except for the gastrocnemius muscle, which showed an intermediate rate of conjugation.
Relative contributions of UBC2 and UBC4 to the ubiquitination in
different tissues.
Previous studies have demonstrated that the E214k isoform
of UBC2 (5) and UBC4 (3, 35) are capable of
supporting conjugation of ubiquitin in vitro to a broad spectrum of
endogenous proteins. To test the relative importance of these two
families of E2s in the conjugation of ubiquitin in these tissues, we
depleted the extracts of either of the two E2 subfamilies by
immunoprecipitation and remeasured the remaining ubiquitination
activity in the supernatants (Fig. 2).
Because of the limited amounts of purified antibody, four tissues were
selected for study. Preliminary experiments showed that >95% of the
E2s were specifically depleted by the immunoprecipitation (data not
shown). Removal of either of the E2s resulted in similar degrees of
inhibition of ubiquitination, suggesting that each of these E2 families
contributes to a similar extent to the overall ubiquitination of
proteins in these tissues.
|
Effects of supplementation of extracts with E1 and E2s on the rates
of ubiquitination.
Because removal of the E2s lowered rates of ubiquitination, we tested
whether the enzymes might be limiting by determining whether
supplementing the extracts with enzymes involved in conjugation would
increase rates of ubiquitination. The E1 or E214k isoform of UBC2 or UBC4-1 was added to the extracts to determine whether any of these enzymes are limiting for conjugation (Fig.
3). Concentrations were chosen that were
likely to be in excess based on previous studies. E1 has previously
been shown to have Km values of ~100 pM for
E2s, and E214k has been found to have an apparent
Km of 60 nM for E3-dependent conjugation in
reticulocyte extracts (5). Supplementation of the extracts
with 50 nM exogenous E1 did not increase rates of incorporation of
ubiquitin, suggesting that E1 is not rate limiting for conjugation.
However, addition of 250 nM E2s stimulated conjugation in almost all of
the tissues. Supplementation with E214k stimulated
conjugation modestly by approximately twofold in all tissues except for
the testis. Supplementation with UBC4-1 stimulated conjugation in
all tissues. However, UBC4-1 stimulated conjugation more potently
than E214k, up to sixfold, and often generated extremely
large ubiquitin-protein conjugates that remained in the stacking gel
(Fig. 3).
|
Endogenous levels of UBC2 and UBC4 isoforms in different tissues.
Because these in vitro studies indicated that modulation of E2 levels
can control ubiquitination, one possible mechanism for regulating the
rate of conjugation is to regulate the levels of the E2s. To evaluate
this possibility, we estimated the tissue concentrations of the E2s
(Table 1) and the ranges of E2
concentrations capable of stimulating ubiquitination. Levels of UBC2
varied from 200 to 900 nM. Interestingly, levels of UBC4 were
approximately less than one-half of those measured for UBC2. In
addition, UBC4 levels were more variable, with the lowest levels seen
in skeletal muscle (14 nM) and the highest levels (400 nM) seen in the
liver. We characterized carefully the dependence of the rates of
conjugation on the levels of each of these E2s in several tissue
extracts and determined concentrations at which they were able to
half-maximally stimulate conjugation in the extracts (Table
2). These apparent Km values were similar in various tissues,
varying from 9.8 to 50 nM for UBC2 and 28-44 nM for UBC4-1.
Thus, in all tissues, UBC2 levels appear to be severalfold above the
apparent Km values. However, UBC4 levels appear
to be saturating in the testis and the liver, but they are below the
Km in skeletal muscle and only approximately
threefold higher than Km in the heart.
|
|
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
A simple model for regulation of the ubiquitin system has been proposed previously. In this model, flux through the pathway depends on the availability of ubiquitinated proteins for degradation by the 26S proteasome (4). The pool of ubiquitinated proteins available for degradation by the proteasome is determined by the balance between rates of ubiquitination and rates of deubiquitination. Rates of ubiquitination can be theoretically modulated by the availability of substrates or by the activities of the various enzymes involved in the ligation of ubiquitin to target proteins. In this study, we have, for the first time, explored rates of ubiquitination in extracts from various tissues, quantitated tissue levels of two major E2s, and evaluated the potential of various enzymes involved in ubiquitination to regulate these rates. In so doing, we have made interesting observations regarding potential mechanisms of regulation of ubiquitination.
First, we have observed that rates of ubiquitination were similar among most tissues examined. The obvious exception was the testis, where a threefold higher rate was observed. In contrast to the other tissues, which are terminally differentiated tissues, the testis contains cells that are actively proliferating and differentiating. The higher rates in the testis correlate well with the large number of proteins that are lost during the developmental maturation of haploid spermatids, which occurs in this tissue (33). Indeed, that the rate is related to the developmental maturation of spermatids is supported by our previous observations that the rate of ubiquitination is regulated, being lower in testis from very young animals in which the testis does not yet contain haploid spermatids (22).
Second, deubiquitinating enzymes are very active in cellular extracts, since the rate of accumulation of ubiquitinated proteins increased approximately twofold upon their inhibition. The ubiquitinated proteins that accumulated upon inhibition were unlikely to be polyubiquitin chain products arising after proteasome degradation, since our assays were done with AMPPNP, which does not support proteasome-mediated hydrolysis, and a proteasome inhibitor had little effect on the rate of accumulation of ubiquitinated proteins (data not shown). Thus isopeptidases can have an important role in modulating the steady-state levels of ubiquitinated proteins and thereby also influence the rate of degradation of those proteins.
Third, we have explored the ability of various components of the conjugation system to control ubiquitination. Supplementation of tissue extracts with additional E1 did not enhance conjugation, arguing that this is not an important locus of regulation of conjugation. This is not surprising, since E1 is a common element in all pathways of conjugation and therefore would not permit regulation of specific functions of ubiquitin. Furthermore, E1 is a highly active enzyme, capable of charging excess amounts of E2s with ubiquitin (5). Instead, our data argue that a locus of regulation in the ubiquitin system lies at the E2 level. Manipulating levels of E2s in the extracts up- and downregulated rates of ubiquitination in a similar fashion (Figs. 2 and 3). Our data (Fig. 2) showed that UBC2 and UBC4 isoforms are responsible for similar amounts of ubiquitination in brain, heart, liver, and skeletal muscle. This is in contrast to our previous observations in the testis (22) and other observations in yeast (25) that indicate that UBC4 isoforms are responsible for most of the ubiquitination in those cells. Thus cells with higher rates of protein turnover, such as developing germ cells and proliferating yeast cells, appear to use more UBC4-dependent pathways of proteolysis. For the first time, we have estimated tissue levels of these two major E2 families and found that UBC2 levels are in the 200-800 nM range and that UBC4 levels are in the 10-400 nM range (Table 1). Our findings indicate that concentrations at which there is half-maximal stimulation by each of these E2s is generally in the 10-50 nM range. This would be consistent with the previously estimated apparent Km of E214k for reticulocyte E3 of ~60 nM (6, 34). These findings would argue that UBC2 is probably saturating in vivo but that UBC4 levels can be subsaturating and can be involved in physiological modulation of rates of ubiquitin conjugation. High, potentially saturating levels of UBC4 were observed in the liver, kidney, and testis. However, our testis samples were derived from adult rats whose testes contain predominantly spermatids. In our previous work (22), we have shown that UBC4 levels are relatively low in spermatogonia and early spermatocytes but are markedly induced in spermatids. These changes in UBC4 levels correlate with changes in the rates of conjugation in the testis during development. Thus these observations would argue that the regulation we have observed in the in vitro extracts with UBC4 is likely to be relevant in vivo.
The maximal rates of ubiquitination seen upon UBC4 supplementation were
similar between different tissues (Fig. 3). However, the maximal rates
of ubiquitination upon UBC2 supplementation were still variable between
tissues. This suggests that other factors can limit conjugation, such
as the presence of different levels of substrate availability for
UBC2-dependent E3s, or that regulation of conjugation can also take
place at the level of the E3s. Possibly different tissues express
alternative E3s with different affinities for charged E2s and/or
different levels of E3s. Indeed, in muscle extracts, it has been
observed that conjugation can be stimulated by supplementation of
either E214k and/or E3 (26). As more E3s
become identified and available as reagents, this possible involvement
of E3s in controlling rates of ubiquitination will be testable on a
wider range of E3s.
Ultimately, experiments in which activities of these components are deliberately manipulated in vivo by genetic methods will be required to confirm that modulation of these activities do regulate the pool size of ubiquitinated proteins and the rate of protein degradation. Initial reports are supportive of this. As described earlier, manipulation of levels of a deubiquitinating enzyme has led to differences in levels of ubiquitinated proteins (16, 19). Although the majority of E2 enzymes have likely been identified, the bulk of E3 isoforms and deubiquitinating enzymes likely remains to be discovered. When it is considered that each of these enzymes is a potential target of regulation and that controlling substrate availability is also clearly a mechanism of regulation, it becomes evident that modulation of the ubiquitin system is likely to be both extremely complex and precise.
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
---|
We are grateful to Aaron Ciechanover for providing a protocol for the synthesis of ubiquitin aldehyde, to Arthur Haas for providing the plasmid expressing E214k and a protocol for purification of this E2, and to Proscript for a gift of MG-132.
![]() |
FOOTNOTES |
---|
This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MT-12121) and initially by the Marvin M. Burke Grant from the Canadian Diabetes Association.
Present address for V. Rajapurohitam: Dept. of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
1 UBC4-1 (GenBank accession number U13177) was previously referred to as the 2E isoform of E217KB (35) but was renamed to conform to the current practice of naming E2s after their apparent yeast homolog.
2 The sequence of the E214k isoform of UBC2 is deposited in GenBank as accession number M62387.
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: Polypeptide Laboratory, McGill Univ., Strathcona Anatomy and Dentistry Bldg, Rm. W315, 3640 University St., Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2B2 (E-mail: simon.wing{at}mcgill.ca).
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
10.1152/ajpendo.00511.2001
Received 12 November 2001; accepted in final form 29 November 2001.
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
1.
Ciechanover, A,
Heller H,
Elias S,
Haas AL,
and
Hershko A.
ATP-dependent conjugation of reticulocyte proteins with the polypeptide required for protein degradation.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
87:
1365-1368,
1980.
2.
Coux, O,
Tanaka K,
and
Goldberg AL.
Structure and functions of the 20S and 26S proteasomes.
Annu Rev Biochem
65:
801-847,
1996[ISI][Medline].
3.
Girod, PA,
and
Vierstra RD.
A major ubiquitin conjugation system in wheat germ extracts involves a 15-kDa ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme (E2) homologous to the yeast UBC4/UBC5 gene products.
J Biol Chem
268:
955-960,
1993
4.
Haas, AL,
and
Bright PM.
The dynamics of ubiquitin pools within cultured human lung fibroblasts.
J Biol Chem
262:
345-351,
1987
5.
Haas, AL,
and
Bright PM.
The resolution and characterization of putative ubiquitin carrier protein isozymes from rabbit reticulocytes.
J Biol Chem
263:
13258-13267,
1988
6.
Haas, AL,
Bright PM,
and
Jackson VE.
Functional diversity among putative E2 isozymes in the mechanism of ubiquitin-histone ligation.
J Biol Chem
263:
13268-13275,
1988
7.
Haas, AL,
and
Rose IA.
The mechanism of ubiquitin activating enzyme.
J Biol Chem
257:
10329-10337,
1982
8.
Haas, AL,
and
Siepmann TJ.
Pathways of ubiquitin conjugation.
FASEB J
11:
1257-1268,
1997
9.
Haas, AL,
Warms JVB,
Hershko A,
and
Rose IA.
Ubiquitin-activating enzyme: mechanism and role in protein-ubiquitin conjugation.
J Biol Chem
257:
2543-2548,
1982
10.
Hershko, A,
and
Ciechanover A.
The ubiquitin system.
Annu Rev Biochem
67:
425-479,
1998[ISI][Medline].
11.
Hershko, A,
Heller H,
Elias S,
and
Ciechanover A.
Components of ubiquitin-protein ligase system.
J Biol Chem
258:
8206-8214,
1983
12.
Hershko, A,
and
Rose IA.
Ubiquitin-aldehyde: a general inhibitor of ubiquitin-recycling processes.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
84:
1829-1833,
1987[Abstract].
13.
Jentsch, S,
McGrath JP,
and
Varshavsky A.
The yeast DNA repair gene RAD6 encodes a ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme.
Nature
329:
131-134,
1987[ISI][Medline].
14.
King, RW,
Deshaies RJ,
Peters JM,
and
Kirschner MW.
How proteolysis drives the cell cycle.
Science
274:
1652-1659,
1996
15.
Lahav-Baratz, S,
Sudakin V,
Ruderman JV,
and
Hershko A.
Reversible phosphorylation controls the activity of cyclosome-associated cyclin-ubiquitin ligase.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
92:
9303-9307,
1995[Abstract].
16.
Lindsey, DF,
Amerik A,
Deery WJ,
Bishop JD,
Hochstrasser M,
and
Gomer RH.
A deubiquitinating enzyme that disassembles free polyubiquitin chains is required for development but not growth in Dictyostelium.
J Biol Chem
273:
29178-29187,
1998
17.
Michalek, MT,
Grant EP,
Gramm C,
Goldberg AL,
and
Rock KL.
A role for the ubiquitin-dependent proteolytic pathway in MHC class I-restricted antigen presentation.
Nature
363:
552-554,
1993[ISI][Medline].
18.
Mitch, WE,
and
Goldberg AL.
Mechanisms of muscle wasting: the role of the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway.
N Engl J Med
335:
1897-1905,
1996
19.
Naviglio, S,
Matteucci C,
Matoskova B,
Nagase T,
Nomura N,
Di Fiore PP,
and
Draetta GF.
UBPY: a growth-regulated human ubiquitin isopeptidase.
EMBO J
17:
3241-3250,
1998
20.
Palombella, VJ,
Rando OJ,
Goldberg AL,
and
Maniatis T.
The ubiquitin-proteasome pathway is required for processing the NF-kB1 precursor protein and the activation of NF-kB.
Cell
78:
773-785,
1994[ISI][Medline].
21.
Pickart, CM.
Mechanisms underlying ubiquitination.
Annu Rev Biochem
70:
503-533,
2001[ISI][Medline].
22.
Rajapurohitam, V,
Morales CR,
El-Alfy M,
Lefrancois S,
Bédard N,
and
Wing SS.
Activation of a UBC4-dependent pathway of ubiquitin conjugation during postnatal development of the rat testis.
Dev Biol
212:
217-228,
1999[ISI][Medline].
23.
Reiss, Y,
Heller H,
and
Hershko A.
Binding sites of ubiquitin-protein ligase. Binding of ubiquitin-protein conjugates and of ubiquitin-carrier protein.
J Biol Chem
264:
10378-10383,
1989
24.
Scheffner, M,
Nuber U,
and
Huibregtse JM.
Protein ubiquitination involving an E1-E2-E3 enzyme ubiquitin thiolester cascade.
Nature
373:
81-83,
1995[ISI][Medline].
25.
Seufert, W,
and
Jentsch S.
Ubiquitin-conjugating enzymes UBC4 and UBC5 mediate selective degradation of short-lived and abnormal proteins.
EMBO J
9:
543-550,
1990[Abstract].
26.
Solomon, V,
Lecker SH,
and
Goldberg AL.
The N-end rule pathway catalyses a major fraction of the protein degradation in skeletal muscle.
J Biol Chem
273:
25216-25222,
1998
27.
Wefes, I,
Mastrandrea LD,
Haldeman M,
Koury ST,
Tamburlin J,
Pickart CM,
and
Finley D.
Induction of ubiquitin-conjugating enzymes during terminal erythroid differentiation.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
92:
4982-4986,
1995[Abstract].
28.
Weissman, AM.
Themes and variations on ubiquitylation.
Nature Rev Mol Cell Biol
2:
169-178,
2001[ISI][Medline].
29.
Wilkinson, KD.
Regulation of ubiquitin-dependent processes by deubiquitinating enzymes.
FASEB J
11:
1245-1256,
1997
30.
Wilkinson, KD,
Cox MJ,
Mayer AN,
and
Frey T.
Synthesis and characterization of ubiquitin ethyl ester, a new substrate for ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase.
Biochemistry
25:
6644-6649,
1986[ISI][Medline].
31.
Wing, SS,
and
Banville D.
14-kDa ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme: structure of the rat gene and regulation upon fasting and by insulin.
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab
267:
E39-E48,
1994
32.
Wing, S,
and
Bedard N.
Insulin-like growth factor I stimulates degradation of a mRNA transcript encoding the 14 kDa ubiquitin conjugating enzyme.
Biochem J
319:
455-461,
1996[ISI][Medline].
33.
Wing, SS,
Bedard N,
Morales C,
Hingamp P,
and
Trasler J.
A novel rat homologue of the S. cerevisiae ubiquitin conjugating enzyme UBC4 with distinct biochemical features is induced during spermatogenesis.
Mol Cell Biol
16:
4064-4072,
1996[Abstract].
34.
Wing, SS,
Dumas F,
and
Banville D.
A rabbit reticulocyte ubiquitin carrier protein that supports ubiquitin-dependent proteolysis (E214k) is homologous to the yeast DNA repair gene RAD6.
J Biol Chem
267:
6495-6501,
1992
35.
Wing, SS,
and
Jain P.
Molecular cloning, expression, and characterization of a ubiquitin conjugation enzyme (E2 17KB) highly expressed in rat testis.
Biochem J
305:
125-132,
1995[ISI][Medline].