From the Fukuda Initiative Research Unit, RIKEN (The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research), 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan
Received for publication, December 4, 2002, and in revised form, February 5, 2003
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Rabphilin, Rim, and Noc2 have generally been
believed to be the Rab3 isoform (Rab3A/B/C/D)-specific effectors that
regulate secretory vesicle exocytosis in neurons and in some endocrine cells. The results of recent genetic analysis of rabphilin knock-out animals, however, strongly refute this notion, because there are no
obvious genetic interactions between Rab3 and rabphilin in nematoda
(Staunton, J., Ganetzky, B., and Nonet, M. L. (2001) J. Neurosci. 21, 9255-9264), suggesting that Rab3 is not a major ligand of rabphilin in vivo. In this study, I tested the
interaction of rabphilin, Rim1, Rim2, and Noc2 with 42 different Rab
proteins by cotransfection assay and found differences in rabphilin,
Rim1, Rim2, and Noc2 binding to several Rab proteins that belong to the
Rab functional group III (Rab3A/B/C/D, Rab26, Rab27A/B, and Rab37)
and/or VIII (Rab8A and Rab10). Rim1 interacts with Rab3A/B/C/D, Rab10,
Rab26, and Rab37; Rim2 interacts with Rab3A/B/C/D and Rab8A; and
rabphilin and Noc2 interact with Rab3A/B/C/D, Rab8A, and Rab27A/B. By
contrast, the synaptotagmin-like protein homology domain of Slp
homologue lacking C2 domains-a (Slac2-a)/melanophilin
specifically recognizes Rab27A/B but not other Rabs. I also found that
alternative splicing events in the first Rabphilin was originally identified as a Rab3A-binding
protein on synaptic vesicles (1), and it binds the GTP-bound activated form of Rab3A through its N-terminal domain, consisting of two In this study, I examined the Rab binding activities of Rim1, Rim2,
Noc2, and rabphilin by cotransfection assay in COS-7 cells using 42 different Rab proteins (including 37 subfamilies reported in the mouse
data bases (18, 19)) and found that these molecules exhibit distinct
Rab binding specificity. Rim1, Rim2, Noc2, and rabphilin interact
differently with several Rab proteins that belong to the Rab functional
group III (Rab3, Rab26, Rab27, and Rab37) and/or VIII (Rab8 and Rab10)
(18) (see also Fig. 3), whereas the synaptotagmin-like protein
(Slp)1 homology domain (SHD)
of Slp homologue lacking C2 domains-a (Slac2-a)/melanophilin specifically recognizes Rab27A/B. I also identified the acidic cluster
in the Molecular Cloning of the Mouse Rim1, Rim2, Noc2, and the Rab
Family and Construction of Expression Vectors--
cDNA encoding
an N-terminal Rab binding domain (RBD) of mouse Rim1, Rim2, and Noc2
was amplified from the Marathon-Ready adult brain cDNA
(Clontech) by reverse transcriptase-PCR as
described previously (20) using the following pairs of oligonucleotides with restriction enzyme sites (underlined) or stop codons (boldface type) designed on the basis of the mouse sequence reported in the
databases: 5'-CGGATCCATGTCCTCGGCCGTGGGGCC-3'
(Rim1-Met primer; sense) and 5'-TCACACCTCAGATCCAGCACCTG-3'
(Rim1-RBD-3' primer; antisense; GenBankTM accession number
AJ310531); 5'-CGGATCCATGTCGGCTCCGCTCGGGCC-3' (Rim2-Met
primer; sense) and 5'-TCAGGCTTCCTCATTTCGAAGCC-3' (Rim2-RBD-3' primer; antisense; accession number NM_053271); and 5'-CGGATCCATGGCTGACACCATCTTCAG-3' (Noc2-Met primer; sense)
and 5'-TCACAGAGGTCGGAAGTGGGGAT-3' (Noc2-RBD-3' primer;
antisense; accession number XM_110922). Three different Rim1 cDNAs
(no deletion type (original reported Rim1; simply referred to as Rim1
below),
cDNAs encoding a full open reading frame of the mouse Rab family
(Rab3B, Rab3C, Rab3D, Rab8B, Rab12, Rab13, Rab14, Rab15, Rab19, Rab21,
Rab26, Rab29, Rab30, Rab32, Rab33A, Rab35, Rab36, Rab38, and Rab40A;
Rab nomenclature according to Ref. 18) was similarly amplified from the
Marathon-Ready adult brain or heart cDNA using the following pairs
of oligonucleotides designed on the basis of the mouse or rat sequence
reported in the databases (20):
5'-CGGATCCATGGCTTCAGTGACTGATGG-3' (Rab3B-Met primer;
sense) and 5'-CTAGCAAGAGCAGTTCTGCT-3' (Rab3B-stop primer;
antisense; accession number AF312036);
5'-CGGATCCATGAGACACGAGGCGCCCAT-3' (Rab3C-Met primer;
sense), and 5'-GGACATTAGCAGCCACAGTT-3' (Rab3C-C1 primer;
antisense; accession number AF312037);
5'-CGGATCCATGGCATCCGCTAGTGAGCC-3' (Rab3D-Met primer; sense)
and 5'-CTAACAGCTGCAGCTGCTCG-3' (Rab3D-stop primer;
antisense; accession number NM_031874);
5'-CGGATCCATGGCGAAGACGTACGATTA-3' (Rab8B-Met primer; sense)
and 5'-TCAAAGCAGAGAACAGCGGA-3' (Rab8B-stop primer;
antisense; accession number BB659189); 5'-CAGATCTATGGATCCCAGCGCCGCGCT-3' (Rab12-Met primer; sense)
and 5'-CTCCAAAGTATCAAATCAAC-3' (Rab12-C1 primer; antisense; accession numbers BF141179 and BF715650);
5'-CGGATCCATGGCCAAAGCCTACGACCA-3' (Rab13-Met primer; sense)
and 5'-TCAGCCTAACAAGCACTTGT-3' (Rab13-stop primer;
antisense; accession number AK002303); 5'-CGGATCCATGGCAACTGCACCGTACAA-3' (Rab14-Met primer; sense)
and 5'- CTAGCAGCCACAGCCTTCTC-3' (Rab14-stop primer;
antisense; accession number BI453544);
5'-CGGATCCATGGCGAAACAGTACGATGT-3' (Rab15-Met primer; sense)
and 5'-TCAGCACCAGCAGGTCTTTG-3' (Rab15-stop primer;
antisense; accession numbers BF160330 and BI648588);
5'-CGGATCCATGCAGTTCTCCAGCTCATC-3' (Rab19-Met primer; sense)
and 5'-ACATGTTCAACAAGTACAG-3' (Rab19-C1 primer; antisense;
accession number X80473); 5'-CGGATCCATGGCTGCGGCCGGCGGCGG-3' (Rab21-Met primer; sense) and 5'-TTAGCCGGAGGAACAGCACC-3' (Rab21-stop primer; antisense; accession numbers BI873047 and BB623893); 5'-CGGATCCATGCTGGTGGGGGATTCCGG-3' (Rab26-Met
primer; sense) and 5'-TCAGAGTCGACAGCAGGAGA-3' (Rab26-stop
primer; antisense; accession number U18771);
5'-CGGATCCATGGGCAGCCGAGATCACCT-3' (Rab29-Met primer; sense)
and 5'-CTAGCAGCATGTCCAGCCAG-3' (Rab29-stop primer;
antisense; accession number BC016133); 5'-CGGATCCATGAGTATGGAAGATTATGA-3' (Rab30-Met primer; sense)
and 5'-TTAGTTGAAATTACAACAAG-3' (Rab30-stop primer;
antisense; accession number AF399756);
5'-CGGATCCATGGCGGGCGAGGGACTAGGA-3' (Rab32-Met primer;
sense) and 5'-CACAGAGACACATCAGCAGC-3' (Rab32-C1 primer;
antisense; accession number BI105187);
5'-CGGATCCATGGCACAGCCCATCCTGGG-3' (Rab33A-Met primer; sense) and 5'-TCAACAAGGACAGGAGGCTT-3' (Rab33A-stop primer; antisense; accession number NM_011228);
5'-CGGATCCATGGCCCGGGACTACGACCA-3' (Rab35-Met primer; sense)
and 5'-TTAGCAGCAGCTTTCTTTCG-3' (Rab35-stop primer;
antisense; accession number BI660288); 5'-CGGATCCATGAGGTCCTCTTGGACCCC-3' (Rab36-Met primer; sense)
and 5'-TTAACAGCAGCCTAGGCCGG-3' (Rab36-stop primer;
antisense; accession numbers BB644678 and BB659127);
5'-CGGATCCATGCAGACACCTCACAAGGA-3' (Rab38-Met primer; sense)
and 5'-CTAGGATTTGGCACAGCCAG-3' (Rab38-stop primer;
antisense; accession number BB642876); and
5'-CGGATCCATGAGCTCCCTGGGCAGCCC-3' (Rab40A-Met primer;
sense) and 5'-CTAAGAAATTTTGCAGCTGT-3' (Rab40A-stop primer;
antisense; accession number AF425643).
The PCR products were purified from an agarose gel and directly
inserted into the pGEM-T Easy vector (Promega, Madison, WI) as
described previously (20). Construction of pEF-T7-Rim1-RBD (amino acid
residues 1-227), pEF-T7-Rim1-RBD Site-directed Mutagenesis--
Mutant Rab3A plasmids carrying
IDF-to-AAA substitutions at amino acid positions 57-59 (named
Rab3A(IDF/A3)) or Y84F/T86S/I87L/Y91F/Y92F/G94D (named
Rab3A(27-switch II)) were constructed by conventional PCR techniques
using the following oligonucleotides:
5'-CAGATCTGCAGCTTGATCCTCTTGTCGTTGCGGTAGATGGTTTTGACCTTGGCGGCTGCGCCAA-3' (Rab3A-IDF/A3 primer; antisense) and
5'-CCATGGCGTCTCGGAAAAAGGCTGTGGTGAGGGAGCGGAACCG-3' (Rab3A-switch II primer; sense). The mutant Rab3A fragments were subcloned into the pEF-FLAG-tag vector (20, 23) with appropriate restriction enzyme sites and verified by DNA sequencing.
Mutant Rim2 plasmids carrying EEE-to-LRR (or EEE-to-MEA) substitutions
at amino acid positions 50-52 (named Rim2(LRR) or Rim2(MEA)) were
constructed by two-step PCR techniques using the following mutagenic
oligonucleotides with artificial AflII site (underlined) as
described previously (26):
5'-CTTAAGCACGGACTGCTCCTTCCTCCTTAGTTTCTT-3' (Rim2(LRR) primer, antisense),
5'-CTTAAGCACGGACTGCTCCTTCGCCTCCATTTTCTT-3' (Rim2(MEA) primer, antisense), and
5'-CTTAAGAAGCTGCACCAACA-3' (Rim2AflII
primer, sense). The mutant Rim2 fragments were subcloned into the
pEF-T7-tag vector (20, 23) with appropriate restriction enzyme sites
and verified by DNA sequencing.
Dominant active forms and dominant negative forms of Rab3A (Q81L and
T36N, respectively), Rab8A (Q67L and T22N, respectively), Rab26 (Q57L
and T11N, respectively), and Rab37 (Q89L and T43N, respectively) were
similarly produced by PCR using the following oligonucleotides:
5'-CGAATTCTTGCCCACGCTGCTGTTCC-3' (Rab3A- T36N-5' primer, antisense), 5'-AAGAATTCGTTCCTCTTCCGCTACGC-3'
(Rab3A-T36N-3' primer, sense), 5'-GCGGTACCGCTCTAGCCCTG-3'
(Rab3A-Q81L primer, antisense),
5'-GGATCCATGGCGAAGACCTACGATTACCTGTTCAAGCTGCTGCTGATCGGGGACTCGGGGGTAGGGAAGAACTGT-3' (Rab8A-T22N primer, sense),
5'-CTGCAGATATGGGACACAGCCGGCCTGGAG-3' (Rab8A-Q67L primer,
sense), 5'-GGATCCATGCTGGTGGGGGATTCCGGTGTGGGGAAGAACTGC-3' (Rab26-T11N primer, sense),
5'-AGATCTGGGACACAGCTGGTCTGGAG-3' (Rab26-Q57L primer,
sense), 5'-TCCAAGGAGCATCACCTT-3' (Rab37-T43N-5' primer, antisense), 5'-CTCCTTGGAGACTCGGGCGTCGGCAAAAACTGT-3'
(Rab37-T43N-3' primer, sense), and 5'-ACTGCAGGACTGGAGCGC-3'
(Rab37-Q89L primer, sense). The mutant Rab fragments were subcloned
into the pEF-FLAG-tag vector (20, 23) with appropriate restriction
enzyme sites and verified by DNA sequencing. pEF-FLAG-Rab27A(Q78L) and
pEF-FLAG-Rab27A(T23N) were prepared as described previously (35).
Cotransfection Assay in COS-7 Cells--
COS-7 cells (7.5 ×105 cells, the day before transfection/10-cm dish) with 4 µg of plasmids were transfected by using LipofectAMINE Plus reagent
according to the manufacturer's notes (Invitrogen) (25). Proteins were
solubilized with a buffer containing 1% Triton X-100, 250 mM NaCl, 1 mM MgCl2, 50 mM HEPES-KOH, pH 7.2, 0.1 mM
phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 10 µM leupeptin, and 10 µM pepstatin A at 4 °C for 1 h. T7-tagged
proteins were immunoprecipitated with anti-T7 tag antibody-conjugated
agarose (Novagen, Madison, WI) as described previously (20, 25).
SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting analyses with horseradish peroxidase
(HRP)-conjugated anti-FLAG tag (Sigma) and anti-T7 tag antibodies
(Novagen) were also performed as described previously (20, 25). The
blots shown in this paper are representative of at least two or three
independent experiments.
Miscellaneous Procedures--
The reverse transcriptase-PCR
analysis was also performed as described previously (27, 28). Multiple
sequence alignment and depiction of the phylogenetic tree were also
performed by the ClustalW program (available on the World Wide Web at
hypernig.nig.ac.jp/homology/clustalw.shtml) set at the default
parameters as described previously (29).
Distinct Rab Binding Specificity of Rim, Rabphilin, and
Noc2--
In a previous study, we identified Slp (Slp1-5) (24,
29-33) and Slac2 (Slac2-a-c) as specific Rab27A/B-binding proteins
(25, 33-37). The members of the Slp and Slac2 families share two
potential
To determine whether rabphilin interacts with Rabs other than the Rab3
isoforms, I first prepared 42 different recombinant Rab proteins
(including 37 subfamilies reported thus far in the mouse data bases
(18, 19)) and tested their interaction in COS-7 cells by cotransfection
assay with T7-tagged rabphilin and 37 different FLAG-tagged Rab
proteins classified into different subfamilies (24, 25). As expected,
rabphilin strongly interacted with three different Rab species (Rab3A,
Rab8A, and Rab27A) and marginally with Rab15, but not with any of the
other Rabs tested (Fig. 2B,
top panel). By contrast, Slac2-a exclusively
interacted with Rab27A and not with any other Rabs, including Rab3A,
the closest homologue of Rab27A (Fig. 2C, top
panel), consistent with the results of my previous studies
(24, 25, 34). It should be noted that Rab27 (which belongs to Rab
functional group III) and Rab8 (which belongs to Rab functional group
VIII) have been suggested to regulate the transport of secretory
vesicles (18, 31, 32, 44, 45), although group III and VIII Rabs clearly form different branches of the phylogenetic tree (Fig.
3).
Since the Rab3A binding domain of Rim1, Rim2, and Noc2 exhibited
striking homology to that of rabphilin (Fig.
4A) and these molecules formed
a small branch distinct from the SHDs in the phylogenetic tree (Fig.
1B), Rim and Noc2 were hypothesized to exhibit broader Rab
binding specificity, the same as rabphilin, rather than being a Rab3
isoform-specific effector. To test this hypothesis, interaction between
Rim (or Noc2) and Rab functional groups III (Rab8A/B, Rab10, and Rab13)
and VIII (Rab3A/B/C/D, Rab26, Rab27A/B, and Rab37) was investigated by
cotransfection assay (Fig. 5). To our
surprise, Rim1 exhibited the broadest Rab binding specificity
(Rab3A/B/C/D, Rab10, Rab26, and Rab37; Fig. 5B,
top panel), whereas Rim2 interacted only with the
Rab3 isoforms and Rab8A (Fig. 5E, top
panel). Interestingly, however, Rim1 and Rim2 did not
interact with Rab27A/B, the closest homologue of the Rab3 isoforms
(Fig. 5, lanes 10 and 11 in
top panels). By contrast, Noc2 and rabphilin
interacted with the Rab27A/B, Rab8A, and Rab3 isoforms, although the
interaction of Noc2 (or rabphilin) with the Rab3 isoforms (and Rab8A)
seemed to be weaker than its interaction with Rab27A/B (Fig. 5,
F and G, top panel). This
was evident when three proteins (T7-Noc2 (or T7-rabphilin), FLAG-Rab3A, and FLAG-Rab27A) were coexpressed in COS-7 cells. Although expression levels of Rab3A were at least 2 times higher than those of
Rab27A, both Noc2 and rabphilin preferentially interacted with Rab27A rather than Rab3A, indicating that they bind Rab27A with higher affinity than Rab3A (Supplementary Fig. 1). In addition, interaction of
Rim, Noc2, and rabphilin with Rab functional groups III and VIII should
be GTP-dependent, because Rim1, Noc2, and rabphilin preferentially interacted with dominant active forms of Rab (mimics GTP-bound forms; Rab3A(Q81L), Rab8A(Q67L), Rab26(Q57L), Rab27A(Q78L), or Rab37(Q89L)) rather than dominant negative forms of Rab (mimics GDP-bound forms; Rab3A(T36N), Rab8A(T22N), Rab26(T11N),
Rab27A(T23N), or Rab37(T43N)) (Supplementary Fig. 2).
The distinct Rab binding specificities of Rim1 and Rim2 were
surprising, because the N-terminal Rab binding domains are highly conserved in Rim1 and Rim2 (Fig. 1A). During the course of
cDNA cloning of mouse brain Rim1, I found that at least three
alternative splicing isoforms of Rim1 are expressed in mouse brain
(named Rim1, Rim1 Identification of Critical Determinants on the Rab3A·Rim2 Complex
in Rab3A--
Since Rim2 (or Rim1) recognized Rab3 isoforms but did
not recognize Rab27A/B, I next attempted to determine the structural determinant(s) of the Rim2·Rab3A complex in Rab3A by chimeric analysis of Rab3A and Rab27A. To do so, I initially focused on the
switch I and switch II regions of Rab3A, because structural analysis
has shown these regions to directly interact with rabphilin (3), and
the specific sequence in the switch II region of Rab27A is critical for
Rab27A recognition by the SHD of Slac2-a (34). As noted previously, the
switch I region is highly conserved in Rab3 and Rab27, but several
amino acids (e.g. Tyr-84, Thr-86, Ile-87, Tyr-91, Tyr-92,
and Gly-94) are not conserved in Rab27A/B (Fig.
6A, asterisks in
the switch II region) (34). Thus, it is highly possible that Rim2-RBD
recognizes a specific sequence in the switch II region of Rab3
isoforms. As shown in Fig. 6B, Rim2 only weakly recognized
the mutant Rab3A(Y84F/T86S/I87L/Y91F/Y92F/G94D) (named Rab3A(27-switch
II)) (lane 3), which mimics the Rab27A switch II
region, whereas rabphilin bound this mutant, the same as it bound the
wild-type protein (lane 6). By contrast,
mutations in the switch I in Rab3A (IDF/A3; asterisks in the
switch I region) completely abrogated the recognition of Rab3A by both
Rim2 and rabphilin (Fig. 6B, lanes 2 and 5), and similar results were obtained for Rab27A. The
Rab27A(IDF/A3) switch I mutant did not interact with either Slac2-a or
rabphilin (data not shown), and the Rab27A(L84I/F88Y/D91G) switch II
mutant interacted with rabphilin but not with Slac2-a (34). These
results indicate that both the switch I and switch II regions of Rab3A
and Rab27A are essential for recognition by the Rim2-RBD and the
Slac2-a-SHD, respectively. However, since Rim seemed to bind Rab3
isoforms with somewhat different affinity (Fig. 5, B-E),
additional region(s) of Rab3A may partly contribute to its specific
recognition by Rim, because the switch I and switch II regions of
Rab3A/B/C/D are almost identical (Fig. 6A).
Identification of Critical Determinants on the Rab3A·Rim2 Complex
in Rim2--
In the final set of experiments, I further attempted to
determine the critical determinant of Rab3A recognition by the RBD of
Rim2. Since the minimal Rab3A binding domain of Rim1 and rabphilin and
the minimal Rab27A binding domain of Slac2-a has been mapped to the
first Although Rim, rabphilin, and Noc2 are widely believed to be Rab3
isoform-specific effectors, the results of the present study demonstrate that Rim1, Rim1 Sequence comparison between Rim and Slac2s (or Slps) and site-directed
mutagenesis have clearly shown that the acidic cluster located in the
middle region of the In summary, I have demonstrated that Rim, rabphilin, and Noc2, which
were previously believed to be Rab3-specific effectors, interact
differently with functional groups III and VIII Rabs. I have also
identified that the EEE/LRR sequence in the first -helical region
(
1) of the Rab binding domain of Rim1 alter the
Rab binding specificity of Rim1. Site-directed mutagenesis and chimeric
analyses of Rim2 and Slac2-a indicate that the acidic cluster (Glu-50,
Glu-51, and Glu-52) in the
1 region of the Rab binding
domain of Rim2, which is not conserved in the synaptotagmin-like pro
tein homology domain of Slac2-a, is a critical determinant of Rab3A
recognition. Based on these results, I propose that Rim, rabphilin, and
Noc2 function differently in concert with functional group III and/or
VIII Rab proteins, including Rab3 isoforms.
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-helical regions (
1 and
2) and zinc
finger motifs (2, 3). Since a similar Rab3A binding domain is also
found in the N-terminal domain of Rim and Noc2 (4-7), rabphilin, Rim,
and Noc2 have previously been proposed to be specific effectors for the
Rab3 isoforms (i.e. Rab3A, Rab3B, Rab3C, and Rab3D) and to
regulate secretory vesicle exocytosis in neurons and in some endocrine
cells (6, 8-11) (reviewed in Ref. 12). However, the results of a
recent genetic analysis of rabphilin knock-out animals strongly refute
this notion, because there are no obvious genetic interactions between
Rab3 and rabphilin in neurotransmitter release (13, 14). Consistent with this, Rab3A has been shown to function in exocytosis of endocrine cells independent of rabphilin (15, 16). In addition, an analysis of a
Caenorhabditis elegans unc-10 mutant (homologue of
vertebrate Rim) has revealed that there is little genetic interaction
between Rim and Rab3, indicating that Rim functions as more than just an effector of Rab3 (17). All of these observations strongly suggest
that Rab3A is not a major in vivo binding partner of Rim, rabphilin, and Noc2 and that another unidentified binding protein(s) (possibly other Rab subfamilies) must exist in the body. However, no
attempt to identify a genuine ligand of these molecules has ever been
made, despite the fact that such information is critical to
understanding the different phenotypes in Rim and rabphilin mutant
animals at the molecular level.
1 region as a critical determinant of Rab3A
recognition by Rim2. These results suggest that Rim, Noc2, and
rabphilin are not specific Rab3 effectors and may activate various Rabs
differently than previously thought.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
83-105 (deletion of amino acid residues 83-105 in Rim1),
and
56-105 (deletion of amino acid residues 56-105 in Rim1)) were produced by alternatively splicing at the RBD1(
1)
(4, 6) (see Fig. 4A). The longest form of Rim1 was dominant
in mouse brain (see Fig. 4B, left
lane), whereas the shortest form of Rim2 (corresponding to
the Rim1
56-105 form) was dominant (original reported Rim2; simply
referred to as Rim2 below) (see Fig. 4B, middle
lane).
83-105, pEF-T7-Rim1-RBD
56-105, pEF-T7-Rim2-RBD (amino acid residues 1-175), T7-Noc2-RBD (amino acid
residues 1-180), pEF-T7-rabphilin-RBD (amino acid residues 1-186),
and pEF-FLAG-Rabs were essentially performed as described previously
(21-23). All constructs were verified by DNA sequencing. Other
expression constructs (pEF-T7-rabphilin, pEF-T7-Slac2-a, and other
pEF-FLAG-Rabs) were prepared as described previously (22, 24, 25).
Plasmid DNA was prepared using Wizard minipreps (Promega) or Qiagen
(Chatsworth, CA) maxiprep kits.
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-helical regions (referred to as Slp homology domains 1 and 2, SHD1 (same as RBD27) and SHD2) at their N terminus (28),
and SHD1 of Slac2-a alone is both necessary and sufficient for specific GTP-dependent Rab27A/B binding (34). All other SHDs except
the Slp4 SHD specifically bind Rab27A/B (reviewed in Ref. 38).
Interestingly, the SHD shows sequence and structural similarities to
the Rab3A binding domain of rabphilin (i.e. two
-helical
regions separated by Zn2+ finger motifs) (28) (Fig.
1, A and B, and
Fig. 4A), and Rab27A/B is the closest homologue of Rab3A in
the phylogenetic tree (18) (Fig. 3). Although rabphilin was first
proposed to be a Rab3 isoform-specific effector (1, 39), recent genetic
evidence indicates that there is no clear genetic interaction between
Rab3 and rabphilin (13, 14), suggesting that rabphilin may function as
an effector for Rabs other than the Rab3 isoforms. Actually, there are
several Rab proteins that are phylogenetically similar to the Rab3
isoforms (e.g. Rab26, Rab27A/B, and Rab37) and localized on
secretory granules, the same as Rab3A (31, 32, 40-42) (reviewed in
Refs. 18 and 43).
View larger version (53K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Rab binding properties of the Slp family, the
Slac2 family, Rim1, Rim2, Noc2, and rabphilin. A,
sequence alignment of the Rab binding domain (RBD) of the mouse or
human Slp family (Slp1-5), the Slac2 family (Slac2-a/b/c),
Rim1 56-105, Rim2, Noc2, and rabphilin (7, 22, 24, 28, 29). Residues
that are conserved and similar in half of the sequences are shown
against black and gray backgrounds,
respectively. The arrowhead indicates the alternative
splicing site of Rim1 (see also Fig. 4A). The
number signs indicate the conserved
(S/T)G(A/D/E)WF(Y/F) motif in rabphilin that is essential for Rab3A
binding (3). The dotted lines and
arrows indicate the putative
-helix (
1 and
2) and
-strand (
1-
4)
based on an analogy to the three-dimensional structure of rabphilin (3)
and secondary structure analysis (34). Amino acid numbers are indicated
at the right of each line. B,
phylogenetic tree of the RBD of the mouse or human Slp family
(Slp1-5), the Slac2 family (Slac2-a/b/c), Rim1
56-105, Rim2,
Noc2, and rabphilin. Note that the RBD of Rim, Noc2, and rabphilin
forms a small branch distinct from the SHD of the Slp and Slac2
families. Molecules that exhibit multiple Rab binding activities are in
shaded boxes. C, summary of the Rab
binding specificity of the mouse or human Slp family (Slp1-5), the
Slac2 family (Slac2-a/b/c), Rim1, Rim2, Noc2, and rabphilin (see also
Fig. 5). Interaction between Rim1 and Rab10 (or Rab37) was regulated by
alternative splicing (asterisks). In PC12 cells, Rab3A did
not interact with Slp4-a (32), suggesting that Slp4-a may not be an
in vivo Rab3 effector (#). Parentheses indicate very weak
interactions even in a cotransfection assay in COS-7 cells.
View larger version (19K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Distinct Rab binding specificity of rabphilin
and Slac2-a. pEF-T7-rabphilin (or pEF-T7-Slac2-a) and pEF-FLAG-Rab
were cotransfected into COS-7 cells. The proteins expressed were
immunoprecipitated by anti-T7 tag antibody-conjugated agarose (Novagen)
(20, 25). A, total expressed FLAG-Rabs (one-eightieth volume
of the reaction mixture) used for immunoprecipitation. B,
co-immunoprecipitated (IP) FLAG-Rabs with T7-rabphilin were
first detected with HRP-conjugated anti-FLAG tag antibody (1:10,000
dilution) (top panel; Blot, anti-FLAG;
IP, anti-T7). The same blots were then stripped and reprobed
with HRP-conjugated anti-T7 tag antibody (1:10,000 dilution) to ensure
that the same amounts of T7-rabphilin proteins had been loaded
(bottom panel; Blot, anti-T7;
IP, anti-T7). Note that rabphilin interacted with Rab3A,
Rab8A, and Rab27A (lanes 3, 8, and
26) and marginally with Rab15 (lane
15). C, specific interaction between Slac2-a and
Rab27A (lane 26) as assayed by the cotransfection
assay described above. The positions of the molecular weight markers
(× 10 3) are shown on the left.
View larger version (20K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
Phylogenetic tree of mouse Rab proteins
(Rab1-Rab40) depicted by the ClustalW program. The Rab functional
groups III and VIII formed distinct branches of the phylogenetic tree.
Rabs that interact with Rim1, Rim2, Noc2, and/or rabphilin are boxed.
The Slp family (except Slp4) and the Slac2 family exclusively interact
with Rab27 isoforms (black boxed).
View larger version (30K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
Structure of the Rab binding domain of Rim,
Noc2, and rabphilin. A, schematic representation of
three alternative splicing isoforms of Rim1, Rim2, Noc2, and rabphilin.
The Rab binding domain of Rim1, Rim2, Noc2, and rabphilin consists of
two potential -helical regions, RBD1 (same as
1) and RBD2 (same as
2) (black
boxes and shaded boxes, respectively)
that are separated by two Cys-based Zn2+ finger motifs.
Note that at least three forms of Rim1 are produced by alternative
splicing at the C terminus of RBD1 (named Rim1, Rim1
83-105, and
Rim1
56-105) and that the longest form of Rim1 is dominant in the
mouse brain (arrow in B). Similar alternative
splicing events may occur in Rim2, according to the results of data
base searching (data not shown), but the single form of Rim2
corresponding to Rim1
56-105 is found in mouse brain (see
B). B, reverse transcriptase-PCR analysis of the
Rab binding domain of Rim1, Rim2, and Noc2 in mouse brain. Note that
alternative splicing events in Rim1 and Rim2 were differently regulated
in mouse brain. The size of the molecular weight markers (100-bp
marker) is shown at the right. The gels shown here are
representative of two independent experiments.
View larger version (34K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
Distinct Rab binding specificity of Rim1,
Rim2, Noc2, and rabphilin. pEF-T7-Rim1-RBD (or pEF-T7-Rim2-RBD,
pEF-T7-Noc2-RBD, or pEF-T7-rabphilin-RBD) and pEF-FLAG-Rabs
(Rab3A/B/C/D, Rab8A/B, Rab13, Rab26, Rab27A/B, or Rab37) were
cotransfected into COS-7 cells. The proteins expressed were
immunoprecipitated with anti-T7 tag antibody-conjugated agarose as
described previously (20, 25). A, total expressed FLAG-Rabs
(one-eightieth volume of the reaction mixture) used for
immunoprecipitation. B-G, co-immunoprecipitated
(IP) FLAG-Rabs were first detected with HRP-conjugated
anti-FLAG tag antibody (1:10,000 dilution) (top
panels; Blot, anti-FLAG; IP, anti-T7).
The same blots were then stripped and reprobed with HRP-conjugated
anti-T7 tag antibody (1:10,000 dilution) to ensure that the same
amounts of T7-tagged proteins had been loaded (bottom
panels; Blot, anti-T7; IP, anti-T7).
Note that rabphilin and Noc2 interacted with Rab27A/B and Rab8A in
addition to Rab3 isoforms (lanes 5,
10, and 11), whereas Rim1 and Rim2 did not
interact with Rab27A/B. The positions of the molecular weight markers
(× 10 3) are shown on the left.
83-105, and Rim1
56-105; see Fig. 4,
A and B) (6), although the longest form of Rim1
was dominant in mouse brain. It should be noted that alternative
splicing events occurred in RBD1(
1) (Fig. 1A,
arrowhead), because RBD1 has been suggested to be important
for Rab3A binding of Rim1 (7), and the corresponding region of Slac2-a
(i.e. SHD1) is critical for Rab27A binding (34). Interestingly, a single isoform of Rim2 corresponding to Rim1
56-105 was detected in the mouse brain (Fig. 4B). I therefore
hypothesized that broader Rab binding specificity of Rim1 and distinct
Rab binding specificities of Rim1 and Rim2 may be attributable to the
alternative splicing events at the RBD1 (i.e. deletion in the RBD1 of Rim1 may alter the Rab binding specificity of Rim1). To
verify this hypothesis, I tested the Rab binding specificity of
Rim1
83-105 and Rim1
56-105. As expected, the binding activity toward Rab10 and Rab37 was decreased by deletion of amino acids 56-105, whereas its binding activity toward Rab26 was unchanged (Fig.
5, B-D, lanes 7,
9, and 12 in the top
panels). Although all three Rim1 splicing isoforms bound
Rab3A/B/C/D, Rab3D binding activity seemed to be increased by deletion
of amino acids 56-105 (Fig. 5, B-D, lane
4). However, since Rim1
56-105, which corresponds to
Rim2, still bound Rab26 but not Rab8A, I concluded that the distinct
Rab binding specificities of Rim1 and Rim2 cannot be explained by
alternative splicing events in RBD1.
View larger version (40K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 6.
Switch I and II regions of Rab3A are
essential for recognition by Rim2. A, sequence
alignment of the switch I and switch II regions of mouse Rab3A/B/C/D
and Rab27A/B. Conserved and similar residues are shown against
black and gray backgrounds,
respectively. The arrows and broken
line correspond to the 2- and
3-strands and the
-helix region (
2),
respectively, of the rabphilin contact site of Rab3A (3). The
number signs indicate the residues that are
involved in rabphilin binding of Rab3A (3). The asterisks
indicate the residues that are essential for Rim2 binding of Rab3A (see
B). Amino acid numbers are indicated on the
right. B, pEF-T7-Rim2-RBD (left
panel) or pEF-T7-rabphilin-RBD (right
panel) and pEF-FLAG-Rab3A mutants were cotransfected into
COS-7 cells. Co-immunoprecipitated (IP) FLAG-Rab3A mutants
and immunoprecipitated T7-tagged proteins are shown in the
middle (Blot, anti-FLAG; IP, anti-T7)
and bottom panels (Blot, anti-T7;
IP, anti-T7), respectively. The top
panel indicates total expressed FLAG-Rab3A proteins
(one-eightieth volume of the reaction mixture) used for
immunoprecipitation. Note that the switch II Rab3A(27-switch II) mutant
only weakly interacted with Rim2 (lane 3) but
interacted well with rabphilin (lane 6). By
contrast, the switch I (IDF/A3) mutant did not interact with either
Rim2 or rabphilin (lanes 2 and 5). The
positions of the molecular weight markers (× 10
3) are
shown on the left.
-helical region, critical determinant(s) of Rab3A or Rab27A
recognition should be present in this region (7, 34). In a previous
study, I identified several amino acids that are essential for Rab27A
recognition by the Slac2-a SHD (e.g. Glu-14, Val-18, Val-21,
and Glu-32 of Slac2-a) (34). However, since these residues are also
conserved in Rim1 and Rim2, the corresponding residues of Rim are
unlikely to be involved in specific Rab3A recognition. To identify the
critical determinant of Rab3A recognition, I carefully compared the
amino acid sequences of Rim1, Rim2, rabphilin, Noc2, Slac2s, and Slps
again and found an acidic cluster (EEE) in the middle region of the
1 of Rim1 and Rim2, which is not conserved in the Slp
and Slac2 families (Fig. 7A,
number signs). In many members of the Slp and
Slac2 families, this position is occupied by L(R/K)(R/K)
(i.e. basic residues). To test whether the acidic cluster is
involved in Rab3A recognition by Rim2, I prepared mutant Rim2 that
carries EEE-to-LRR (mimics Slac2-a) or EEE-to-MEA (mimics rabphilin)
substitutions. To my surprise, the Rim2(LRR) mutant did not interact
with Rab3A but did interact with Rab27A (Fig. 7B, compare
lanes 2 and 5), although the binding
activity of Rim2(LRR) toward Rab27A was weaker than that of Slac2-a
(data not shown). Interestingly, the Rim2(MEA) mutant still interacted
with Rab3A and weakly with Rab27A, consistent with the fact that
rabphilin is capable of interacting with both Rab3A and Rab27A (Fig.
2B).
View larger version (52K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 7.
Acidic cluster in RBD1
( 1) of Rim2 is a critical
determinant of Rab3A recognition. A, sequence alignment
of the SHD1 of the Slp and Slac2 families and RBD1 of Rim1
56-105,
Rim2, Noc2, and rabphilin (7, 22, 24, 28, 29). Residues that are
conserved and similar in half of the sequences are shown against
black and gray backgrounds,
respectively. The number signs indicate the
acidic cluster of Rim (open boxed), which is not
conserved in the SHD1 of the Slp and Slac2 families. The
arrowheads indicate the amino acid substitutions in Rim2.
Amino acid numbers are indicated on the right. B,
pEF-T7-Rim2-RBD mutant and pEF-FLAG-Rab3A or (pEF-FLAG-Rab27A) were
cotransfected into COS-7 cells. Co-immunoprecipitated (IP)
FLAG-Rab mutants and immunoprecipitated T7-tagged proteins are shown in
the middle (Blot, anti-FLAG; IP,
anti-T7) and bottom panels (Blot,
anti-T7; IP, anti-T7), respectively. The top
panel indicates total expressed FLAG-Rab proteins
(one-eightieth volume of the reaction mixture) used for
immunoprecipitation. Note that the LRR-to-EEE conversion altered the
Rab binding specificity of Rim2. The positions of the molecular weight
markers (× 10
3) are shown on the left.
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
83-105, Rim1
56-105, Rim2, rabphilin, and Noc2 exhibit broad Rab binding specificities and bind differently to several Rab proteins that belong to the Rab functional groups III
(Rab3A/B/C/D, Rab26, Rab27A/B, and Rab37) and/or VIII (Rab8A and Rab10)
(Fig. 5; summarized in Fig. 1C). This finding is in considerable contrast to the SHDs of the Slp and Slac2 families, which
specifically recognize Rab27A and Rab27B but not Rab3, a closely
related homologue of Rab27 (24, 25). The broad and different Rab
binding specificities of rabphilin and Rim may explain the different
phenotypes of Rim (Unc-10), rabphilin, and Rab3 mutants in C. elegans and mice (13, 14, 17). Rabphilin and Rim may function as a
Rab8, Rab27, and/or Rab37 effector as well as a Rab3 effector in
vivo. Indeed, mammalian homologues of Rab8, Rab27, and Rab37 are
also present in C. elegans, although their function remains
to be clarified (18). In addition, Noc2 preferentially binds Rab27A/B
rather than Rab3A and Rab8A (5) (Fig. 5, F and G), suggesting that Noc2 mainly functions as a Rab27
effector in vivo. Consistent with this notion, both Noc2 and
Rab27A are predominantly expressed in pancreatic
-cells (5, 31), and Noc2, rabphilin, and Rab27A are also coexpressed in PC12 cells (5, 8,
32).
1 of Rim2 (Glu-50, Glu-51, and
Glu-52) is a critical determinant of Rab3A recognition (Fig. 7). It
should be noted that such an acidic cluster was absent in the Slp and
Slac2 family and that L(R/K)(R/K) (hydrophobic residue and two basic
residues) occupies this position. In addition, structural analysis has
shown that the Glu-65 of rabphilin, which corresponds to the Glu-50 of
Rim2, directly interacts with Rab3A (3). Interestingly, rabphilin and
Noc2, both of which are capable of binding Rab3 and Rab27, contain only
one acidic residue and no basic residues (Fig. 7A,
open box). Most importantly, the replacement of
EEE by LRR in Rim2 altered Rab3A/Rab27A recognition (Fig.
7B), suggesting that a balance between acidic and basic
residues in the middle region of the first
-helical region may be
the primary determinant of the Rab3/Rab27 recognition of Rim, Noc2,
rabphilin, Slp, and Slac2. Interestingly, the same acidic cluster was
also found in the C. elegans Rim (Unc-10) (17), suggesting
that Rim functions as a Rab3 (and possibly Rab37) effector but not a
Rab27 effector, across phylogeny. By contrast, C. elegans
rabphilin contains an SKS sequence (i.e. basic residue)
instead of an acidic cluster (14), suggesting that C. elegans rabphilin may function as a Rab27 effector but not a Rab3
effector. Consistent with this, there were no genetic interactions
between rabphilin and Rab3 mutants (14). Interaction of C. elegans rabphilin with C. elegans Rab3 or Rab27 is now
under investigation in my laboratory. I also noted that analysis of
C. elegans rabphilin mutants has revealed genetic
interaction between rabphilin and SNARE proteins (syntaxin, SNAP-25,
and synaptobrevin/VAMP) (14), because mammalian Rab27 effectors (Slp4-a
and Slp3-a) interact with Munc18-1 (31,
46),2 one of the well known
syntaxin I-binding proteins that is essential for secretory vesicle
exocytosis (47-49). It is therefore tempting to speculate that both
vertebrate and invertebrate Rab27 and their effectors (i.e.
Slp and rabphilin) control secretory vesicle exocytosis through
interaction with SNARE-related proteins. Further work is necessary to
elucidate this possibility.
-helical region of
the Rab binding domain of Rim is the critical determinant of specific
Rab3/Rab27 recognition. Based on these results, I suggest that the
previous functional block studies using the Rab binding domain of Rim,
rabphilin, and Noc2 should be reevaluated, because these domains are
unlikely to function as a specific Rab3 trapper.
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
---|
I thank Dr. Miguel C. Seabra (Imperial College, London, UK) for information on the mouse Rab40A sequence and Eiko Kanno and Yukie Ogata for expert technical assistance.
![]() |
FOOTNOTES |
---|
* This work was supported in part by grants from the Science and Technology Agency of Japan (to M. F.) and Grant 13780624 from the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture of Japan (to M. F.).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.
The on-line version of this article (available at
http://www.jbc.org) contains two additional figures.
To whom correspondence may be addressed: Fukuda Initiative
Research Unit, RIKEN, 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan. Tel.: 81-48-462-4994; Fax: 81-48-462-4995; E-mail:
mnfukuda@brain.riken.go.jp.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, February 10, 2003, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M212341200
2 Fukuda, M. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 15390-15396.
![]() |
ABBREVIATIONS |
---|
The abbreviations used are: Slp, synaptotagmin-like protein; HRP, horseradish peroxidase; RBD, Rab binding domain; SHD, Slp homology domain; Slac2, Slp homologue lacking C2 domains; SNARE, soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor attachment protein receptor.
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
1. | Shirataki, H., Kaibuchi, K., Sakoda, T., Kishida, S., Yamaguchi, T., Wada, K., Miyazaki, M., and Takai, Y. (1993) Mol. Cell. Biol. 13, 2061-2068[Abstract] |
2. |
Yamaguchi, T.,
Shirataki, H.,
Kishida, S.,
Miyazaki, M.,
Nishikawa, J.,
Wada, K.,
Numata, S.,
Kaibuchi, K.,
and Takai, Y.
(1993)
J. Biol. Chem.
268,
27164-27170 |
3. | Ostermeier, C., and Brunger, A. T. (1999) Cell 96, 363-374[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
4. | Wang, Y., Okamoto, M., Schmitz, F., Hofmann, K., and Südhof, T. C. (1997) Nature 388, 593-598[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
5. |
Kotake, K.,
Ozaki, N.,
Mizuta, M.,
Sekiya, S.,
Inagaki, N.,
and Seino, S.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
29407-29410 |
6. |
Wang, Y.,
Sugita, S.,
and Südhof, T. C.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
20033-20044 |
7. |
Wang, X.,
Hu, B.,
Zimmermann, B.,
and Kilimann, M. W.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
32480-32488 |
8. | Komuro, R., Sasaki, T., Orita, S., Maeda, M., and Takai, Y. (1996) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 219, 435-440[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
9. |
Burns, M. E.,
Sasaki, T.,
Takai, Y.,
and Augustine, G. J.
(1998)
J. Gen. Physiol.
111,
243-255 |
10. |
Haynes, L. P.,
Evans, G. J.,
Morgan, A.,
and Burgoyne, R. D.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
9726-9732 |
11. | Iezzi, M., Regazzi, R., and Wollheim, C. B. (2000) FEBS Lett. 474, 66-70[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
12. | Geppert, M., and Südhof, T. C. (1998) Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 21, 75-95[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
13. |
Schluter, O. M.,
Schnell, E.,
Verhage, M.,
Tzonopoulos, T.,
Nicoll, R. A.,
Janz, R.,
Malenka, R. C.,
Geppert, M.,
and Südhof, T. C.
(1999)
J. Neurosci.
19,
5834-5846 |
14. |
Staunton, J.,
Ganetzky, B.,
and Nonet, M. L.
(2001)
J. Neurosci.
21,
9255-9264 |
15. |
Joberty, G.,
Stabila, P. F.,
Coppola, T.,
Macara, I. G.,
and Regazzi, R.
(1999)
J. Cell Sci.
112,
3579-3587 |
16. |
Chung, S. H.,
Joberty, G.,
Gelino, E. A.,
Macara, I. G.,
and Holz, R. W.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
18113-18120 |
17. | Koushika, S. P., Richmond, J. E., Hadwiger, G., Weimer, R. M., Jorgensen, E. M., and Nonet, M. L. (2001) Nat. Neurosci. 4, 997-1005[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
18. | Pereira-Leal, J. B., and Seabra, M. C. (2001) J. Mol. Biol. 313, 889-901[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
19. | Bock, J. B., Matern, H. T., Peden, A. A., and Scheller, R. H. (2001) Nature 409, 839-841[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
20. |
Fukuda, M.,
Kanno, E.,
and Mikoshiba, K.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
31421-31427 |
21. | Mizushima, S., and Nagata, S. (1990) Nucleic Acids Res. 18, 5332 |
22. |
Fukuda, M.,
Aruga, J.,
Niinobe, M.,
Aimoto, S.,
and Mikoshiba, K.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
29206-29211 |
23. |
Fukuda, M.,
and Mikoshiba, K.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
28180-28185 |
24. |
Kuroda, T. S.,
Fukuda, M.,
Ariga, H.,
and Mikoshiba, K.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
9212-9218 |
25. |
Fukuda, M.,
Kuroda, T. S.,
and Mikoshiba, K.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
12432-12436 |
26. |
Fukuda, M.,
Kojima, T.,
Aruga, J.,
Niinobe, M.,
and Mikoshiba, K.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
26523-26527 |
27. | Fukuda, M., and Mikoshiba, K. (2001) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 281, 1226-1233[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
28. | Fukuda, M., Saegusa, C., and Mikoshiba, K. (2001) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 283, 513-519[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
29. | Kuroda, T. S., Fukuda, M., Ariga, H., and Mikoshiba, K. (2002) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 293, 899-906[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
30. | Fukuda, M. (2002) Biochem. J. 366, 681-687[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
31. |
Yi, Z.,
Yokota, H.,
Torii, S.,
Aoki, T.,
Hosaka, M.,
Zhao, S.,
Takata, K.,
Takeuchi, T.,
and Izumi, T.
(2002)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
22,
1858-1867 |
32. |
Fukuda, M.,
Kanno, E.,
Saegusa, C.,
Ogata, Y.,
and Kuroda, T. S.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
39673-39678 |
33. |
Strom, M.,
Hume, A. N.,
Tarafder, A. K.,
Barkagianni, E.,
and Seabra, M. C.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
25423-25430 |
34. |
Fukuda, M.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
40118-40124 |
35. |
Fukuda, M.,
and Kuroda, T. S.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
43096-43103 |
36. | Wu, X. S., Rao, K., Zhang, H., Wang, F., Sellers, J. R., Matesic, L. E., Copeland, N. G., Jenkins, N. A., and Hammer, J. A., III (2002) Nat. Cell Biol. 4, 271-278[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
37. |
El-Amraoui, A.,
Schonn, J. S.,
Kussel-Andermann, P.,
Blanchard, S.,
Desnos, C.,
Henry, J. P.,
Wolfrum, U.,
Darchen, F.,
and Petit, C.
(2002)
EMBO Rep.
3,
463-470 |
38. | Fukuda, M. (2002) Recent Res. Dev. Neurochem. 5, 297-309 |
39. | Li, C., Takei, K., Geppert, M., Daniell, L., Stenius, K., Chapman, E. R., Jahn, R., De Camilli, P., and Südhof, T. C. (1994) Neuron 13, 885-898[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
40. | Masuda, E. S., Luo, Y., Young, C., Shen, M., Rossi, A. B., Huang, B. C., Yu, S., Bennett, M. K., Payan, D. G., and Scheller, R. H. (2000) FEBS Lett. 470, 61-64[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
41. | Yoshie, S., Imai, A., Nashida, T., and Shimomura, H. (2000) Histochem. Cell Biol. 113, 259-263[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
42. |
Zhao, S.,
Torii, S.,
Yokota-Hashimoto, H.,
Takeuchi, T.,
and Izumi, T.
(2002)
Endocrinology
143,
1817-1824 |
43. | Zerial, M., and McBride, H. (2001) Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2, 107-117[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
44. | Peranen, J., Auvinen, P., Virta, H., Wepf, R., and Simons, K. (1996) J. Cell Biol. 135, 153-167[Abstract] |
45. |
Chen, S.,
Liang, M. C.,
Chia, J. N.,
Ngsee, J. K.,
and Ting, A. E.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
13209-13216 |
46. |
Coppola, T.,
Frantz, C.,
Perret-Menoud, V.,
Gattesco, S.,
Hirling, H.,
and Regazzi, R.
(2002)
Mol. Biol. Cell
13,
1906-1915 |
47. | Hata, Y., Slaughter, C. A., and Südhof, T. C. (1993) Nature 366, 347-351[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
48. | Garcia, E. P., Gatti, E., Butler, M., Burton, J., and De Camilli, P. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91, 2003-2007[Abstract] |
49. | Rizo, J., and Südhof, T. C. (2002) Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3, 641-653[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |