Subcellular localization of proteasomes and their regulatory complexes in mammalian cells.

Department of Biochemistry, University of Bristol, School of Medical Sciences, Bristol BS8 1TD, U.K.
Biochemical Journal (Impact Factor: 4.78). 03/2000; 346 Pt 1:155-61. DOI: 10.1042/0264-6021:3460155
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Proteasomes can exist in several different molecular forms in mammalian cells. The core 20S proteasome, containing the proteolytic sites, binds regulatory complexes at the ends of its cylindrical structure. Together with two 19S ATPase regulatory complexes it forms the 26S proteasome, which is involved in ubiquitin-dependent proteolysis. The 20S proteasome can also bind 11S regulatory complexes (REG, PA28) which play a role in antigen processing, as do the three variable gamma-interferon-inducible catalytic beta-subunits (e.g. LMP7). In the present study, we have investigated the subcellular distribution of the different forms of proteasomes using subunit specific antibodies. Both 20S proteasomes and their 19S regulatory complexes are found in nuclear, cytosolic and microsomal preparations isolated from rat liver. LMP7 was enriched approximately two-fold compared with core alpha-type proteasome subunits in the microsomal preparations. 20S proteasomes were more abundant than 26S proteasomes, both in liver and cultured cell lines. Interestingly, some significant differences were observed in the distribution of different subunits of the 19S regulatory complexes. S12, and to a lesser extent p45, were found to be relatively enriched in nuclear fractions from rat liver, and immunofluorescent labelling of cultured cells with anti-p45 antibodies showed stronger labelling in the nucleus than in the cytoplasm. The REG was found to be localized predominantly in the cytoplasm. Three- to six-fold increases in the level of REG were observed following gamma-interferon treatment of cultured cells but gamma-interferon had no obvious effect on its subcellular distribution. These results demonstrate that different regulatory complexes and subpopulations of proteasomes have different distributions within mammalian cells and, therefore, that the distribution is more complex than has been reported for yeast proteasomes.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this review, we describe research findings on the effects of alcohol exposure on two major catabolic systems in liver cells: the ubiquitin–proteasome system (UPS) and autophagy. These hydrolytic systems are not unique to liver cells; they exist in all eukaryotic tissues and cells. However, because the liver is the principal site of ethanol metabolism, it sustains the greatest damage from heavy drinking. Thus, the focus of this review is to specifically describe how ethanol oxidation modulates the activities of the UPS and autophagy and the mechanisms by which these changes contribute to the pathogenesis of alcohol-induced liver injury. Here, we describe the history and the importance of cellular hydrolytic systems, followed by a description of each catabolic pathway and the differential modulation of each by ethanol exposure. Overall, the evidence for an involvement of these catabolic systems in the pathogenesis of alcoholic liver disease is quite strong. It underscores their importance, not only as effective means of cellular recycling and eventual energy generation, but also as essential components of cellular defense.
    12/2014; 3. DOI:10.1016/j.redox.2014.10.006
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The proteasome is responsible for the breakdown of cellular proteins. Proteins targeted for degradation are allowed inside the proteasome particle, where they are cleaved into small peptides and released in the cytosol to be degraded into amino acids. In vertebrates, some of these peptides escape degradation in the cytosol, are loaded onto class I molecules of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) and displayed at the cell surface for scrutiny by the immune system. The proteasome therefore plays a key role for the immune system: it provides a continued sampling of intracellular proteins, so that CD8-positive T-lymphocytes can kill cells expressing viral or tumoral proteins. Consequently, the repertoire of peptides displayed by MHC class I molecules at the cell surface depends on proteasome activity, which may vary according to the presence of proteasome subtypes and regulators. Besides standard proteasomes, cells may contain immunoproteasomes, intermediate proteasomes and thymoproteasomes. Cells may also contain regulators of proteasome activity, such as the 19S, PA28 and PA200 regulators. Here, we review the effects of these proteasome subtypes and regulators on the production of antigenic peptides. We also discuss an unexpected function of the proteasome discovered through the study of antigenic peptides: its ability to splice peptides.
    12/2014; 4(4):994-1025. DOI:10.3390/biom4040994
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The hepatitis B virus (HBV) causes acute and chronic hepatitis, and the latter is a major risk factor for the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). HBV encodes a 17-kDa regulatory protein, HBx, which is required for virus replication. Although the precise contribution(s) of HBx to virus replication is unknown, many viruses target cellular pathways to create an environment favorable for virus replication. The ubiquitin proteasome system (UPS) is a major conserved cellular pathway that controls several critical processes in the cell by regulating the levels of proteins involved in cell cycle, DNA repair, innate immunity, and other processes. We summarize here the interactions of HBx with components of the UPS, including the CUL4 adaptor DDB1, the cullin regulatory complex CSN, and the 26S proteasome. Understanding how these protein interactions benefit virus replication remains a challenge due to limited models in which to study HBV replication. However, studies from other viral systems that similarly target the UPS provide insight into possible strategies used by HBV.
    Viruses 11/2014; 6(11):4683-4702. DOI:10.3390/v6114683 · 3.28 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jul 3, 2014