Amyloid-based yeast prions identified to date.
Abstract
Yeast prions are self-templating amyloid aggregates composed of misfolded cellular proteins. In order to propagate, yeast prions must be broken into heritable seeds that are passed to subsequent generations. The replication step of the prion propagation cycle is accomplished by the actions of molecular chaperones, which bind to and serve the fibers through a process called disaggregation. Prions can be thought of as molecular diseases that have hijacked the chaperones for their continued existence. When viewed in this way, the study of yeast prions has been very informative about the interactions among of the molecular chaperones. This chapter focuses on the role of a single Hsp40 or J-protein, Sis1, in the propagation of yeast prions. While Sis1 seems to be required for the maintenance of many different prions, various prions depend on Sis1 in different ways, perhaps due to differences in underlying amyloid structure. New evidence is emerging that Sis1 is important for processes that may not involve prion replication activity, providing an intriguing alternative explanation for the observed differences in the prions’ reliance on Sis1.
Keywords
- Sis1
- yeast prion
- [PSI+]
- [URE3]
- [RNQ+]
- Hsp40
- J-protein
- prion propagation
- amyloid
1. Introduction
In 1994, Reed Wickner solved a puzzle that had beguiled
Name | Determinant | Phenotype | Notes | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
[ |
Sup35 | Nonsense suppression | Weak and strong variants | [1] |
[URE3] | Ure2 | Derepression of nitrogen utilization pathways | [3] | |
[ |
Rnq1 | Rnq1 aggregation; decrease in de novo [ |
Also known as [ |
[13] |
[ |
Sfp1 | Antisuppression (reverse of [ |
Not dependent on Hsp104 | [14] |
[ |
Swi1 | Poor growth on alternative carbon sources | [15] | |
[ |
Cyc8 | Cyc8 deletion | [16] | |
[ |
Mot3 | Pseudohyphal growth and biofilm formation | [17] | |
[ |
Mod5 | Fluconazole resistance | Prion-forming domain isnot Q/N rich | [18] |
The molecular chaperones were first identified in
Class | Structure and function | Yeast |
|
---|---|---|---|
Hsp100 | Hexameric AAA+ ATPase disaggregase | Hsp104 | ClpB |
Hsp90 | Dimeric posttranslational modifier of client activity | Hsc82, Hsp82 | HtpG |
Hsp70 | Holdase; binds and releases unfolded polypeptides | Ssa1 through Ssa4; Ssb1, Ssb2 | DnaK |
Hsp60 | Tetradecameric mitochondrial chaperonin | Hsp60 | GroEL |
Hsp40 | Also called J-protein; dimeric stimulator ofHsp70 ATPase; substrate specificity | Sis1, Ydj1, Jjj1; 23 others (reviewed in Ref. [20]) | DnaJ, CbpA, DjlA |
Small HSPs | Crystallins, promoters of aggregation | Hsp42, Hsp26 |
The first findings that molecular chaperones played a role in yeast prions were the discovery that overexpression of the AAA+ ATPase disaggregase Hsp104 “cured” cells of the [
This chapter focuses on the role of the Hsp40 Sis1 in yeast prion biology. Figure 1 shows a cartoon of Sis1 domain structure. In addition to playing a central role in yeast prion propagation, Sis1 is essential for cell viability [26]. While the exact nature of Sis1’s essential function remains unknown, it is clear that its regulation of Hsp70 function (via stimulation of Hsp70 ATPase, reviewed in Ref. [27]) is important, since the minimal Sis1 fragment required for growth is the Hsp70-interacting J-domain and the adjacent glycine/phenylalanine region [28]. Likewise, a single point mutation in any of the three universally conserved residues of the HPD (histidine, proline and aspartate) motif abolishes stimulation of Hsp70 ATPase in vitro [29] and is lethal in vivo [28]. Whether the essential function of Sis1 is also required for prion propagation is unclear, as will be discussed. The nonessential functions of Sis1 can easily be studied using yeast prions, because the different yeast prions all seem to have differing requirements of Sis1 [30–33]. It is these nonessential Sis1 functions that are the focus of this chapter.
2. Yeast prion biology
Most yeast prions share a similar in-register parallel beta-sheet amyloid core composed of a prion-forming domain that is rich in asparagine and glutamine residues [35–37]. In the prion minus state, these domains are mostly unstructured and the protein is soluble and active. In the prion plus state, the prion-forming domains of newly synthesized prion protein molecules are recruited to the ends of an amyloid fiber. The in-register character of the beta-sheet core serves as a template for the incoming soluble molecule [38]. In addition to the different prions shown in
Table 1
, some prions such as [
Most prion proteins also have globular domains that do not misfold to participate in the amyloid core [43, 44]. However, because the amyloid fiber as a whole is insoluble, these globular domains are essentially depleted from the cytosol. For two of the most studied prions, [
Ure2, the determinant of the [URE3] prion, is a regulator of yeast nitrogen catabolism [47, 48]. In the presence of certain nitrogen sources, soluble Ure2 binds to and sequesters transcription factors such as Gln3 in the cytoplasm [49]. When Ure2 is depleted, the transcription factors are free to move into the nucleus, where they activate genes such as
Spontaneous breakage of amyloid fibers, even thermodynamically unstable ones, does not occur often enough to maintain the prion phenotype in an expanding yeast population. This inefficient breakage is evident in the reliance of all amyloid-based yeast prions, except one (see
Table 1
) [54], on the activity of the Hsp104 molecular disaggregase. The absence of the
3. Generalized role of Sis1 in prion propagation
The first report that the essential yeast J-protein Sis1 was involved in prion propagation was in 2001 by a collaborative effort between Elizabeth Craig and Susan Lindquist [62]. Following up on earlier reports and communications that Sis1 co-immunoprecipitated with Rnq1 [26], the determinant of the [
A major step toward answering these questions came from the Craig lab in 2007 [63]. Aron and colleagues introduced into their strains a tetracycline-repressible system that shuts off transcription of target genes, which they called “TET-Off” [64], in this case
Having established that the [
In 2008 Jonathan Weissman’s laboratory answered one of the most important remaining questions: What does Sis1 do in prion propagation [65]? By creating chimeric domain-swapped constructs between Hsp104 and the
The investigations into the collaborative barrier that exists between prokaryotic and eukaryotic Hsp100s and Hsp70s ended up reinforcing the notion that Sis1 provides the disaggregation machinery’s specificity for amyloid substrates. In 2010 and 2011, two studies revealed the underlying reason of why ClpB cannot function in yeast and Hsp104 cannot function in
In a follow-up to the Miot study, the Masison lab extended these findings to the prions [
4. Specialized roles of Sis1 in propagation of the different prions
Amyloid fiber breakage is a process that is fundamental for the propagation of yeast prions. Left alone, intracellular amyloid fibers would be a fleeting phenomenon. This failure to propagate is due simply to the fact that without breakage, upon mitosis there are two cells but only one amyloid fiber. While it is easy to imagine an unstable amyloid fiber able to generate enough seeds for propagation spontaneously, prions that do not require Hsp104 have been rarely observed [54] and this does not necessarily mean that propagation occurs by spontaneous breakage. Rather, amyloid-based yeast prions require molecular chaperones and specifically they require Sis1, as we have seen. At the same time, not all amyloids are the same in terms of their thermodynamic and structural properties [41]. It makes sense that a thermodynamically sturdy amyloid fiber would need an increased capability to resolve complex structures compared to an amyloid composed of the same protein but in less stable conformation. The emerging view is that Sis1 plays a major role in meeting the different demands imposed by various amyloids. The discovery and characterization of distinct prion variants have proven to be a valuable tool in shaping the field’s understanding of the redundancy and variability of chaperone functions [27].
As noted previously, Higurashi showed that while the three most-studied prions, strong [
Higurashi showed that [URE3] was lost much more rapidly than strong [
When Reidy and colleagues investigated whether their Sis1-Ydj1 chimeras could propagate [URE3], they discovered that in addition to the C-terminal domain of Sis1, the glycine-rich domain (consisting of both the G/F region and the glycine/methionine (G/M) region) was also required. They then employed the suite of Sis1 domain truncations used in the Yan, Kirkland and Harris papers to determine the specific requirements for Sis1 on [URE3] propagation, information that was lacking. Remarkably, [URE3] was lost or greatly destabilized by any of the mutations in Sis1 that were tested [33]. In some cases, the prion could be selected for and maintained in the presence of a particular Sis1 truncation, such as deletion of the dimerization motif, by growth on media-lacking adenine. However, the prion was rapidly lost upon relief of the selection pressure. Such observations are noteworthy but do not necessarily constitute ability to efficiently support prion propagation. Thus, [URE3] exhibited the highest dependence on Sis1 function, confirming the initial finding by Higurashi.
Interestingly, in the 2008 Higurashi paper, the authors proposed that the strong reliance on Sis1 by [URE3] they observed may explain a phenomenon first reported in 2000 by Reed Wickner’s group [23]. Moriyama and colleagues reported that in addition to requiring Hsp104 for propagation, the [URE3] prion was cured by overexpression of the Hsp40 Ydj1. [URE3] was unique among the yeast prions in being able to be cured by overexpression of Ydj1. Higurashi showed that a mutated Ydj1 that could no longer interact with Hsp70 failed to cure [URE3] when overexpressed and also showed that overexpression of just the J-domain of Ydj1 or a different J-protein called Jjj1 could cure [URE3] when overexpressed [30]. Higurashi concluded that the curing first observed by Moriyama was not due to Ydj1 itself, but rather the result of having too many J-domains in the cell that perhaps interfered with prion propagation through unproductive interactions with Hsp70. This theory was strengthened by a study published by the Masison group in early 2009 [78]. Sharma and colleagues determined that Ydj1 curing of [URE3] was mediated through Hsp70 by screening for random mutations in Ydj1 that failed to cure [URE3] when overexpressed. Similar to the finding in the Higurashi study that the J-domain of Jjj1 could also cure [URE3], Sharma reported that overexpression of the J-domain of Sis1 also resulted in [URE3] destabilization. Thus, the two studies complemented each other and supported the idea that overabundant J-domains destabilize [URE3], mediated somehow through Hsp70. These studies conflicted with a study published in 2006 [79]. Working with purified components, Lian and colleagues reported that Ydj1 interfered with the ability of Ure2 to form amyloid in vitro in a concentration-dependent manner. The authors extended these results to conclude that overexpressed Ydj1 cured [URE3] prions in vivo through direct inhibition of the Ure2 amyloid growth. However, the effect of Ydj1 on Ure2 amyloid formation was mostly limited to increasing the lag time of amyloid formation along with a decrease in overall yield. When Ydj1 was added to Ure2 amyloid reactions during logarithmic growth of amyloid fibers, conditions that arguably more closely resembled the in vivo situation of overexpressing Ydj1 in a cell that contains actively growing amyloid, no effect on Ure2 amyloid formation kinetics was observed.
The Higurashi model of Ydj1-mediated curing of [URE3] was strengthened by findings in Sis1-Ydj1 chimera paper that further characterized [URE3]’s strong dependence on Sis1 [33]. When the chimeras that could not propagate [URE3] in place of normal Sis1 (those that did not have both the glycine-rich and C-terminal domains of Sis1) were overexpressed in wild-type cells, rapid loss of [URE3] was observed [33]. Removing the dimerization motif from the chimeras that contained the C-terminal domain of Sis1 resulted in amelioration of curing, suggesting that the chimeras destabilized [URE3] by dimerizing with normal Sis1 monomers that were thus unable to propagate [URE3]. The authors then reasoned that [URE3] loss was due to defects in Sis1’s ability to propagate the prion and extended this idea to Ydj1-mediated curing. Perhaps, Ydj1 simply outcompeted Sis1 for interaction with the disaggregation machinery to such a level that was detrimental to [URE3]. Since [URE3] was much more sensitive to Sisi1 alteration than other prions, this may explain why overexpressed Ydj1 had no effect on them. The authors tested this hypothesis by co-overexpressing Sis1 at the same time as Ydj1. In line with their model, they observed that elevating Sis1 levels reduced Ydj1-mediated curing of [URE3] by tenfold, but had no effect on curing by expression of a dominant negative Hsp104 allele. Thus, the initial idea put forth by Higurashi regarding overexpressed Ydj1 curing of [URE3], that is, an imbalance of J-domains in the cell, was correct.
From these studies a correlation is evident that the demand on Sis1 increases with thermostability of the underlying amyloid. Based on the Kirkland, Harris and Reidy papers, one can rank the four prions by increasing dependence on Sis1 as strong [
5. The present and future of Sis1 research
Sis1 is a busy molecule, as we have seen. While the reliance on different functions of Sis1 is well documented, there remains a lack of understanding as to what these functions actually are. It is likely that these functions can be thought of as fine adjustments on the primary function of assisting Hsp70 in substrate delivery to Hsp104. However, this model does not satisfactorily explain why a minimal Sis1 molecule lacking the entire substrate-binding domain is able to propagate some prions such as strong [
One intriguing idea that has emerged is that Sis1 may be functioning in other pathways that are important for prion stability that are not well understood. In 2008 Reed Wickner’s lab reported that overexpression of Btn2 or its homolog, a previously uncharacterized open reading frame that the authors named Cur1, cured cells of [URE3] [85]. Btn2 was shown previously to be involved with endosome trafficking [86]. Kryndushkin and colleagues also observed that deletion of both
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. I thank my Laboratory of Biochemistry and Genetics colleagues for thoughtful discussions and critical reading of the manuscript.
References
- 1.
Cox BS. PSI, a cytoplasmic suppressor of super-suppressor in yeast. Heredity (Edinb). 1965;20:505–21. - 2.
Cox BS. A recessive lethal super-suppressor mutation in yeast and other psi phenomena. Heredity (Edinb). 1971;26:211–32. - 3.
Lacroute F. Non-Mendelian mutation allowing ureidosuccinic acid uptake in yeast. J Bacteriol. 1971;106:519–22. - 4.
Aigle M, Lacroute F. Genetical aspects of [URE3], a non-mitochondrial, cytoplasmically inherited mutation in yeast. Mol Gen Genet. 1975;136:327–35. - 5.
Wickner RB. [URE3] as an altered URE2 protein: evidence for a prion analog in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Science. 1994;264:566–9. - 6.
Wickner RB, Masison DC, Edskes HK. [PSI] and [URE3] as yeast prions. Yeast. 1995;11:1671–85. - 7.
Prusiner SB. Novel proteinaceous infectious particles cause scrapie. Science. 1982;216:136–44. - 8.
Masison DC, Wickner RB. Prion-inducing domain of yeast Ure2p and protease resistance of Ure2p in prion-containing cells. Science. 1995;270:93–5. - 9.
Wickner RB, Masison DC. Evidence for two prions in yeast: [URE3] and [PSI]. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1996;207:147–60. - 10.
Wickner RB. Yeast and fungal prions. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2016;8:a023531. - 11.
Chernoff YO, Lindquist SL, Ono B, Inge-Vechtomov SG, Liebman SW. Role of the chaperone protein Hsp104 in propagation of the yeast prion-like factor [psi+]. Science. 1995;268:880–4. - 12.
Lindquist S, Patino MM, Chernoff YO, Kowal AS, Singer MA, Liebman SW, et al. The role of Hsp104 in stress tolerance and [PSI+] propagation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1995;60:451–60. - 13.
Derkatch IL, Bradley ME, Zhou P, Chernoff YO, Liebman SW. Genetic and environmental factors affecting the de novo appearance of the [PSI+] prion in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Genetics. 1997;147:507–19. - 14.
Rogoza T, Goginashvili A, Rodionova S, Ivanov M, Viktorovskaya O, Rubel A, et al. Non-Mendelian determinant [ISP+] in yeast is a nuclear-residing prion form of the global transcriptional regulator Sfp1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:10573–7. - 15.
Du Z, Park KW, Yu H, Fan Q, Li L. Newly identified prion linked to the chromatin-remodeling factor Swi1 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Nat Genet. 2008;40:460–5. - 16.
Patel BK, Gavin-Smyth J, Liebman SW. The yeast global transcriptional co-repressor protein Cyc8 can propagate as a prion. Nat Cell Biol. 2009;11:344–9. - 17.
Alberti S, Halfmann R, King O, Kapila A, Lindquist S. A systematic survey identifies prions and illuminates sequence features of prionogenic proteins. Cell. 2009;137:146–58. - 18.
Suzuki G, Shimazu N, Tanaka M. A yeast prion, Mod5, promotes acquired drug resistance and cell survival under environmental stress. Science. 2012;336:355–9. - 19.
Schlesinger MJ. Heat shock proteins. J Biol Chem. 1990;265:12111–4. - 20.
Kampinga HH, Craig EA. The HSP70 chaperone machinery: J proteins as drivers of functional specificity. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2010;11:579–92. - 21.
Chernoff YO, Ono B. Dosage-dependent modifiers of Psi-dependent omnipotent suppression in yeast. In A.J.P. Brown, M.F. Tuite, & J.E.G. McCarthy (Eds), Protein synthesis and targeting in yeast. pp. 101–7. Berlin:Springer-Verlag. - 22.
Reidy M, Masison DC. Modulation and elimination of yeast prions by protein chaperones and co-chaperones. Prion. 2011;5:245–9. - 23.
Moriyama H, Edskes HK, Wickner RB. [URE3] prion propagation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae : requirement for chaperone Hsp104 and curing by overexpressed chaperone Ydj1p. Mol Cell Biol. 2000;20:8916–22. - 24.
Bardill JP, Dulle JE, Fisher JR, True HL. Requirements of Hsp104p activity and Sis1p binding for propagation of the [RNQ(+)] prion. Prion. 2009;3:151–60. - 25.
Masison DC, Reidy M. Yeast prions are useful for studying protein chaperones and protein quality control. Prion. 2015;9:174–83. - 26.
Luke MM, Sutton A, Arndt KT. Characterization of SIS1, a Saccharomyces cerevisiae homologue of bacterial dnaJ proteins. J Cell Biol. 1991;114:623–38. - 27.
Reidy M, Masison DC. Yeast prions help identify and define chaperone interaction networks. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2014;15:1008–18. - 28.
Yan W, Craig EA. The glycine-phenylalanine-rich region determines the specificity of the yeast Hsp40 Sis1. Mol Cell Biol. 1999;19:7751–8. - 29.
Tsai J, Douglas MG. A conserved HPD sequence of the J-domain is necessary for YDJ1 stimulation of Hsp70 ATPase activity at a site distinct from substrate binding. J Biol Chem. 1996;271:9347–54. - 30.
Higurashi T, Hines JK, Sahi C, Aron R, Craig EA. Specificity of the J-protein Sis1 in the propagation of 3 yeast prions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:16596–601. - 31.
Kirkland PA, Reidy M, Masison DC. Functions of yeast Hsp40 chaperone Sis1p dispensable for prion propagation but important for prion curing and protection from prion toxicity. Genetics. 2011;188:565–77. - 32.
Harris JM, Nguyen PP, Patel MJ, Sporn ZA, Hines JK. Functional diversification of hsp40: distinct j-protein functional requirements for two prions allow for chaperone-dependent prion selection. PLoS Genet. 2014;10:e1004510. - 33.
Reidy M, Sharma R, Shastry S, Roberts BL, Albino-Flores I, Wickner S, et al. Hsp40s specify functions of Hsp104 and Hsp90 protein chaperone machines. PLoS Genet. 2014;10:e1004720. - 34.
Sha B, Cyr D. Purification, crystallization and preliminary X-ray crystallographic studies of S. cerevisiae Hsp40 Sis1. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 1999;55:1234–6. - 35.
Wickner RB, Dyda F, Tycko R. Amyloid of Rnq1p, the basis of the [PIN+] prion, has a parallel in-register beta-sheet structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:2403–8. - 36.
Shewmaker F, Kryndushkin D, Chen B, Tycko R, Wickner RB. Two prion variants of Sup35p have in-register parallel beta-sheet structures, independent of hydration. Biochemistry. 2009;48:5074–82. - 37.
Kryndushkin DS, Wickner RB, Tycko R. The core of Ure2p prion fibrils is formed by the N-terminal segment in a parallel cross-beta structure: evidence from solid-state NMR. J Mol Biol. 2011;409:263–77. - 38.
Wickner RB, Shewmaker F, Edskes H, Kryndushkin D, Nemecek J, McGlinchey R, et al. Prion amyloid structure explains templating: how proteins can be genes. FEMS Yeast Res. 2010;10:980–91. - 39.
Derkatch IL, Chernoff YO, Kushnirov VV, Inge-Vechtomov SG, Liebman SW. Genesis and variability of [PSI] prion factors in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Genetics. 1996;144:1375–86. - 40.
Bradley ME, Edskes HK, Hong JY, Wickner RB, Liebman SW. Interactions among prions and prion "strains" in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99 Suppl 4:16392–9. - 41.
Tanaka M, Chien P, Naber N, Cooke R, Weissman JS. Conformational variations in an infectious protein determine prion strain differences. Nature. 2004;428:323–8. - 42.
Gorkovskiy A, Thurber KR, Tycko R, Wickner RB. Locating folds of the in-register parallel beta-sheet of the Sup35p prion domain infectious amyloid. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111:E4615–22. - 43.
Baxa U, Taylor KL, Wall JS, Simon MN, Cheng N, Wickner RB, et al. Architecture of Ure2p prion filaments: the N-terminal domains form a central core fiber. J Biol Chem. 2003;278:43717–27. - 44.
Baxa U, Keller PW, Cheng N, Wall JS, Steven AC. In Sup35p filaments (the [PSI+] prion), the globular C-terminal domains are widely offset from the amyloid fibril backbone. Mol Microbiol. 2011;79:523–32. - 45.
Stansfield I, Tuite MF. Polypeptide chain termination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Curr Genet. 1994;25:385–95. - 46.
Zhouravleva G, Frolova L, Le Goff X, Le Guellec R, Inge-Vechtomov S, Kisselev L, et al. Termination of translation in eukaryotes is governed by two interacting polypeptide chain release factors, eRF1 and eRF3. EMBO J. 1995;14:4065–72. - 47.
Courchesne WE, Magasanik B. Regulation of nitrogen assimilation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae : roles of the URE2 and GLN3 genes. J Bacteriol. 1988;170:708–13. - 48.
Coschigano PW, Magasanik B. The URE2 gene product of Saccharomyces cerevisiae plays an important role in the cellular response to the nitrogen source and has homology to glutathione s-transferases. Mol Cell Biol. 1991;11:822–32. - 49.
Blinder D, Coschigano PW, Magasanik B. Interaction of the GATA factor Gln3p with the nitrogen regulator Ure2p in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . J Bacteriol. 1996;178:4734–6. - 50.
Brachmann A, Toombs JA, Ross ED. Reporter assay systems for [URE3] detection and analysis. Methods. 2006;39:35–42. - 51.
Sondheimer N, Lindquist S. Rnq1: an epigenetic modifier of protein function in yeast. Mol Cell. 2000;5:163–72. - 52.
Liebman SW, Bagriantsev SN, Derkatch IL. Biochemical and genetic methods for characterization of [PIN+] prions in yeast. Methods. 2006;39:23–34. - 53.
Vitrenko YA, Pavon ME, Stone SI, Liebman SW. Propagation of the [PIN+] prion by fragments of Rnq1 fused to GFP. Curr Genet. 2007;51:309–19. - 54.
Volkov KV, Aksenova AY, Soom MJ, Osipov KV, Svitin AV, Kurischko C, et al. Novel non-Mendelian determinant involved in the control of translation accuracy in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Genetics. 2002;160:25–36. - 55.
Jung G, Masison DC. Guanidine hydrochloride inhibits Hsp104 activity in vivo: a possible explanation for its effect in curing yeast prions. Curr Microbiol. 2001;43:7–10. - 56.
Ferreira PC, Ness F, Edwards SR, Cox BS, Tuite MF. The elimination of the yeast [PSI+] prion by guanidine hydrochloride is the result of Hsp104 inactivation. Mol Microbiol. 2001;40:1357–69. - 57.
Wegrzyn RD, Bapat K, Newnam GP, Zink AD, Chernoff YO. Mechanism of prion loss after Hsp104 inactivation in yeast. Mol Cell Biol. 2001;21:4656–69. - 58.
Schirmer EC, Glover JR, Singer MA, Lindquist S. HSP100/Clp proteins: a common mechanism explains diverse functions. Trends Biochem Sci. 1996;21:289–96. - 59.
Lum R, Tkach JM, Vierling E, Glover JR. Evidence for an unfolding/threading mechanism for protein disaggregation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae Hsp104. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:29139–46. - 60.
Reidy M, Miot M, Masison DC. Prokaryotic chaperones support yeast prions and thermotolerance and define disaggregation machinery interactions. Genetics. 2012;192:185–93. - 61.
Kummer E, Szlachcic A, Franke KB, Ungelenk S, Bukau B, Mogk A. Bacterial and yeast AAA+ disaggregases ClpB and Hsp104 operate through conserved mechanism involving cooperation with Hsp70. J. Mol. Biol. 2016;428:4378-91. - 62.
Sondheimer N, Lopez N, Craig EA, Lindquist S. The role of Sis1 in the maintenance of the [RNQ+] prion. EMBO J. 2001;20:2435–42. - 63.
Aron R, Higurashi T, Sahi C, Craig EA. J-protein co-chaperone Sis1 required for generation of [RNQ+] seeds necessary for prion propagation. EMBO J. 2007;26:3794–803. - 64.
Belli G, Gari E, Piedrafita L, Aldea M, Herrero E. An activator/repressor dual system allows tight tetracycline-regulated gene expression in budding yeast. Nucleic Acids Res. 1998;26:942–7. - 65.
Tipton KA, Verges KJ, Weissman JS. In vivo monitoring of the prion replication cycle reveals a critical role for Sis1 in delivering substrates to Hsp104. Mol Cell. 2008;32:584–91. - 66.
Sanchez Y, Lindquist SL. HSP104 required for induced thermotolerance. Science. 1990;248:1112–5. - 67.
Schirmer EC, Ware DM, Queitsch C, Kowal AS, Lindquist SL. Subunit interactions influence the biochemical and biological properties of Hsp104. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:914–9. - 68.
Flynn JM, Neher SB, Kim YI, Sauer RT, Baker TA. Proteomic discovery of cellular substrates of the ClpXP protease reveals five classes of ClpX-recognition signals. Mol Cell. 2003;11:671–83. - 69.
Weibezahn J, Tessarz P, Schlieker C, Zahn R, Maglica Z, Lee S, et al. Thermotolerance requires refolding of aggregated proteins by substrate translocation through the central pore of ClpB. Cell. 2004;119:653–65. - 70.
Sielaff B, Tsai FT. The M-domain controls Hsp104 protein remodeling activity in an Hsp70/Hsp40-dependent manner. J Mol Biol. 2010;402:30–7. - 71.
Miot M, Reidy M, Doyle SM, Hoskins JR, Johnston DM, Genest O, et al. Species-specific collaboration of heat shock proteins (Hsp) 70 and 100 in thermotolerance and protein disaggregation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:6915–20. - 72.
DeSantis ME, Leung EH, Sweeny EA, Jackrel ME, Cushman-Nick M, Neuhaus-Follini A, et al. Operational plasticity enables hsp104 to disaggregate diverse amyloid and nonamyloid clients. Cell. 2012;151:778–93. - 73.
Shorter J, Lindquist S. Hsp104 catalyzes formation and elimination of self-replicating Sup35 prion conformers. Science. 2004;304:1793–7. - 74.
Inoue Y, Taguchi H, Kishimoto A, Yoshida M. Hsp104 binds to yeast Sup35 prion fiber but needs other factor(s) to sever it. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:52319–23. - 75.
Shorter J. Hsp104: a weapon to combat diverse neurodegenerative disorders. Neurosignals. 2008;16:63–74. - 76.
Halfmann R, Alberti S, Lindquist S. Prions, protein homeostasis and phenotypic diversity. Trends Cell Biol. 2010;20:125–33. - 77.
Suh WC, Burkholder WF, Lu CZ, Zhao X, Gottesman ME, Gross CA. Interaction of the Hsp70 molecular chaperone, DnaK, with its cochaperone DnaJ. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95:15223–8. - 78.
Sharma D, Stanley RF, Masison DC. Curing of yeast [URE3] prion by the Hsp40 cochaperone Ydj1p is mediated by Hsp70. Genetics. 2009;181:129–37. - 79.
Lian HY, Jiang Y, Zhang H, Jones GW, Perrett S. The yeast prion protein Ure2: structure, function and folding. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2006;1764:535–45. - 80.
Reidy M, Sharma R, Roberts BL, Masison DC. Human J-protein DnaJB6b cures a subset of Saccharomyces cerevisiae prions and selectively blocks assembly of structurally related amyloids. J Biol Chem. 2016;291:4035–47. - 81.
Ohhashi Y, Ito K, Toyama BH, Weissman JS, Tanaka M. Differences in prion strain conformations result from non-native interactions in a nucleus. Nat Chem Biol. 2010;6:225–30. - 82.
Reymer A, Frederick KK, Rocha S, Beke-Somfai T, Kitts CC, Lindquist S, et al. Orientation of aromatic residues in amyloid cores: structural insights into prion fiber diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111:17158–63. - 83.
Alexandrov IM, Vishnevskaya AB, Ter-Avanesyan MD, Kushnirov VV. Appearance and propagation of polyglutamine-based amyloids in yeast: tyrosine residues enable polymer fragmentation. J Biol Chem. 2008;283:15185–92. - 84.
MacLea KS, Paul KR, Ben-Musa Z, Waechter A, Shattuck JE, Gruca M, et al. Distinct amino acid compositional requirements for formation and maintenance of the [PSI(+)] prion in yeast. Mol Cell Biol. 2015;35:899–911. - 85.
Kryndushkin DS, Shewmaker F, Wickner RB. Curing of the [URE3] prion by Btn2p, a Batten disease-related protein. EMBO J. 2008;27:2725–35. - 86.
Kama R, Robinson M, Gerst JE. Btn2, a Hook1 ortholog and potential Batten disease-related protein, mediates late endosome-Golgi protein sorting in yeast. Mol Cell Biol. 2007;27:605–21. - 87.
Wickner RB, Bezsonov E, Bateman DA. Normal levels of the antiprion proteins Btn2 and Cur1 cure most newly formed [URE3] prion variants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111:E2711–20. - 88.
Malinovska L, Kroschwald S, Munder MC, Richter D, Alberti S. Molecular chaperones and stress-inducible protein-sorting factors coordinate the spatiotemporal distribution of protein aggregates. Mol Biol Cell. 2012;23:3041–56. - 89.
Kanneganti V, Kama R, Gerst JE. Btn3 is a negative regulator of Btn2-mediated endosomal protein trafficking and prion curing in yeast. Mol Biol Cell. 2011;22:1648–63. - 90.
Ghaemmaghami S, Huh WK, Bower K, Howson RW, Belle A, Dephoure N, et al. Global analysis of protein expression in yeast. Nature. 2003;425:737–41. - 91.
Miller SB, Ho CT, Winkler J, Khokhrina M, Neuner A, Mohamed MY, et al. Compartment-specific aggregases direct distinct nuclear and cytoplasmic aggregate deposition. EMBO J. 2015;34:778–97. - 92.
Kaganovich D, Kopito R, Frydman J. Misfolded proteins partition between two distinct quality control compartments. Nature. 2008;454:1088–95. - 93.
Miller SB, Mogk A, Bukau B. Spatially organized aggregation of misfolded proteins as cellular stress defense strategy. J Mol Biol. 2015;427:1564–74.