Ed to be most disruptive to function; E95K was the

Ed to be most disruptive to function; E95K was the only mutant variant that had a significant dominant negative effect in our rescue assay (Fig. 2E). This mutation corresponds to another lethal allele of Yip1p, yip1-6 (E76K in Yip1p); though in contrast to yip1-41, it had only minor effects on binding of Yip1p to either Yif1p or Ypt1p/Ypt31p [19]. Collectively, these data reveal that the ability of Yip1A to regulate ER structure does not correlate with its ability to bind either Yif1A or Rab GTPases. Interestingly, we saw a mild loss of function when two Leu residues (L92 and L96) surrounding the essential E95 residue were replaced with Ala. Because a Leu to Ala substitution is a relatively conservative change, we further tested the effect of replacing L92 or L96 with a charged residue. Indeed, both L92D and L96D yielded essentially nonfunctional proteins, indicating the importance of the uncharged character of those residues for function (Fig. 2E). On the other hand, a similar substitution of other nearby conserved nonpolar residues such as F100D or I103D had no effect (Fig. 2E). This selectivity underscores the importance of L92 and L96 in addition to E95. As L92, E95 and L96 are predicted to lie on the same face of a predicted short alpha helix, it is tempting to speculate that the three residues comprise a single binding determinant on Yip1A.tional (Fig. 4B, C and quantified in D), suggesting that the two residues might work in a cooperative fashion to support Yip1A function. This was intriguing given that the yeast mutant counterpart of K146E (K130E) was similarly disruptive to Yip1p function when combined with another mutation [19]. Importantly, we confirmed that the loss of function of these and other key nonrescuing variants described above was not due to low protein expression levels (Fig. S1). In sum, though multiple large-scale substitutions within the TM domain of Yip1A were disruptive, the identity of only a few individual residues, namely K146 in the first luminal loop, and V152 ?a nearby residue at the start of the second TM helix ?were clearly necessary for regulation of ER whorl formation.Required residues in Yip1A may control ER whorl formation independently of its established binding partners Yif1A/Yif1p and the Ypt1p/Ypt31p subclass of GTPasesIt was initially surprising that our unbiased Title Loaded From File analysis revealed in essence only two discrete sites crucial for the ER structural maintenance function of Yip1A (residues centered around E95 and K146). However it was also satisfying that the identified sites corresponded precisely to two sites previously shown to be essential for Yip1p-dependent viability in yeast (E76 and K130). More surprising was our finding that a third site previously 23977191 shown to be essential for Yip1p function in yeast (E70) was completely dispensable for the control of ER whorl formation by Yip1A. This suggested that Yip1A/Yip1p might possess two separate functions. One function ?Microisolater cages at the University of Maryland Baltimore animal facilities. Mice supported by E95 (E76 in yeast) and its flanking residues L92 and L96, as well as K146 (K130 in yeast) and nearby residue V152 ?that is required for ER structural maintenance; and another, supported by E89 (E70), that is dispensable for ER structural maintenance. Furthermore, the ability of Yip1p to bind its established binding partners Yif1p and Ypt1p/Ypt31p, mapped to E70 [19], the residue dispensable for control for ER whorl formation by Yip1A. Thus it seemed that the ER structuring function of Yip1A/Yip1p might operate independent.Ed to be most disruptive to function; E95K was the only mutant variant that had a significant dominant negative effect in our rescue assay (Fig. 2E). This mutation corresponds to another lethal allele of Yip1p, yip1-6 (E76K in Yip1p); though in contrast to yip1-41, it had only minor effects on binding of Yip1p to either Yif1p or Ypt1p/Ypt31p [19]. Collectively, these data reveal that the ability of Yip1A to regulate ER structure does not correlate with its ability to bind either Yif1A or Rab GTPases. Interestingly, we saw a mild loss of function when two Leu residues (L92 and L96) surrounding the essential E95 residue were replaced with Ala. Because a Leu to Ala substitution is a relatively conservative change, we further tested the effect of replacing L92 or L96 with a charged residue. Indeed, both L92D and L96D yielded essentially nonfunctional proteins, indicating the importance of the uncharged character of those residues for function (Fig. 2E). On the other hand, a similar substitution of other nearby conserved nonpolar residues such as F100D or I103D had no effect (Fig. 2E). This selectivity underscores the importance of L92 and L96 in addition to E95. As L92, E95 and L96 are predicted to lie on the same face of a predicted short alpha helix, it is tempting to speculate that the three residues comprise a single binding determinant on Yip1A.tional (Fig. 4B, C and quantified in D), suggesting that the two residues might work in a cooperative fashion to support Yip1A function. This was intriguing given that the yeast mutant counterpart of K146E (K130E) was similarly disruptive to Yip1p function when combined with another mutation [19]. Importantly, we confirmed that the loss of function of these and other key nonrescuing variants described above was not due to low protein expression levels (Fig. S1). In sum, though multiple large-scale substitutions within the TM domain of Yip1A were disruptive, the identity of only a few individual residues, namely K146 in the first luminal loop, and V152 ?a nearby residue at the start of the second TM helix ?were clearly necessary for regulation of ER whorl formation.Required residues in Yip1A may control ER whorl formation independently of its established binding partners Yif1A/Yif1p and the Ypt1p/Ypt31p subclass of GTPasesIt was initially surprising that our unbiased analysis revealed in essence only two discrete sites crucial for the ER structural maintenance function of Yip1A (residues centered around E95 and K146). However it was also satisfying that the identified sites corresponded precisely to two sites previously shown to be essential for Yip1p-dependent viability in yeast (E76 and K130). More surprising was our finding that a third site previously 23977191 shown to be essential for Yip1p function in yeast (E70) was completely dispensable for the control of ER whorl formation by Yip1A. This suggested that Yip1A/Yip1p might possess two separate functions. One function ?supported by E95 (E76 in yeast) and its flanking residues L92 and L96, as well as K146 (K130 in yeast) and nearby residue V152 ?that is required for ER structural maintenance; and another, supported by E89 (E70), that is dispensable for ER structural maintenance. Furthermore, the ability of Yip1p to bind its established binding partners Yif1p and Ypt1p/Ypt31p, mapped to E70 [19], the residue dispensable for control for ER whorl formation by Yip1A. Thus it seemed that the ER structuring function of Yip1A/Yip1p might operate independent.