Article

Ubx2 links the Cdc48 complex to ER-associated protein degradation.

Max-Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Robert-Rössle Strasse 10, 13092 Berlin, Germany.
Nature Cell Biology (Impact Factor: 20.06). 11/2005; 7(10):993-8. DOI: 10.1038/ncb1298
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Endoplasmic reticulum (ER)-associated protein degradation requires the dislocation of selected substrates from the ER to the cytosol for proteolysis via the ubiquitin-proteasome system. The AAA ATPase Cdc48 (known as p97 or VCP in mammals) has a crucial, but poorly understood role in this transport step. Here, we show that Ubx2 (Sel1) mediates interaction of the Cdc48 complex with the ER membrane-bound ubiquitin ligases Hrd1 (Der3) and Doa10. The membrane protein Ubx2 contains a UBX domain that interacts with Cdc48 and an additional UBA domain. Absence of Ubx2 abrogates breakdown of ER proteins but also that of a cytosolic protein, which is ubiquitinated by Doa10. Intriguingly, our results suggest that recruitment of Cdc48 by Ubx2 is essential for turnover of both ER and non-ER substrates, whereas the UBA domain of Ubx2 is specifically required for ER proteins only. Thus, a complex comprising the AAA ATPase, a ubiquitin ligase and the recruitment factor Ubx2 has a central role in ER-associated proteolysis.

0 Followers
 · 
104 Views
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ubiquitin fusion degradation (UFD) substrates are delivered at the proteasome by a handover mechanism involving the ubiquitin-selective chaperone Cdc48 and the ubiquitin shuttle factor Rad23. Here, we show that introduction of a 20 amino acid peptide extension not only rendered degradation independent of Cdc48, in line with the model that this chaperone is involved in early unfolding events of tightly folded substrates, but at the same time relieved the need for efficient polyubiquitylation and the ubiquitin shuttle factor Rad23. Removal of the ubiquitylation sites in the N-terminal UFD signal made the degradation of this substrate strictly dependent on the peptide extension and also on Cdc48 and, importantly the presence of a functional ubiquitylation machinery. This suggests that the extension in the absence of N-terminal ubiquitylation sites is not properly positioned to engage the unfoldase machinery of the proteasome. Thus the need for efficient ubiquitylation and Cdc48 in facilitating proteasomal degradation are tightly linked but can be bypassed in the context of UFD substrates by the introduction of an unstructured extension. Our data suggest that polyubiquitin-binding complexes acting upstream of the proteasome, rather than the proteasome itself, can be primary determinants for the level of ubiquitylation required for protein degradation.
    Scientific Reports 01/2015; 5:7615. DOI:10.1038/srep07615 · 5.08 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Misfolded proteins of the secretory pathway are extracted from the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), polyubiquitylated by a protein complex termed the Hmg-CoA reductase degradation ligase (HRD-ligase) and degraded by cytosolic 26S proteasomes. This process is termed ER-associated protein degradation (ERAD). We previously showed that the membrane protein Der1, which is a subunit of the HRD-ligase, is involved in the export of aberrant polypeptides from the ER. Unexpectedly, we also uncovered a close spatial proximity of Der1 and the substrate receptor Hrd3 in the ER lumen. We report here on a mutant Hrd3KR, which is selectively defective for ERAD of soluble proteins. Hrd3KR displays subtle structural changes that affect its positioning toward Der1. Furthermore, increased quantities of the ER-resident Hsp70 type chaperone Kar2 and the Hsp40 type cochaperone Scj1 bind to Hrd3KR. Noteworthy, deletion of SCJ1 impairs ERAD of model substrates and causes the accumulation of client proteins at Hrd3. Our data imply a function of Scj1 in the removal of malfolded proteins from the receptor Hrd3, which facilitates their delivery to downstream acting components like Der1. © 2014 by The American Society for Cell Biology.
    Molecular Biology of the Cell 11/2014; 26(2). DOI:10.1091/mbc.E14-07-1202 · 4.55 Impact Factor