1,721,050 research outputs found

    A DIFFERENT INTRACELLULAR DISTRIBUTION OF A SINGLE REPORTER PROTEIN IS DETERMINED AT STEADY STATE BY KKXX RETRIEVAL SIGNALS.

    No full text
    To establish the specific contribution to protein topology of KKXX and KDEL retrieval motifs, we have determined by immunogold electron microscopy and cell fractionation the intracellular distribution at steady state of the transmembrane and anchorless versions of human CD8 protein, tagged with KKXX (CD8-E19) and KDEL (CD8-K), respectively, and stably expressed in epithelial rat cells (Martire, G,, Mottola, G., Pascale, M. C., Malagolini, N., Turrini, I., Serafini-Cessi, F,, Jackson, M, R., and Bonatti, S, (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 3541-3547). The CD8-E19 protein is represented by a single form, initially O-glycosylated: only about half of it is located in the endoplasmic reticulum, whereas more than 30% of the total is present in the intermediate compartment and cis-Golgi complex. In the latter compartments, CD8-E19 colocalizes with beta-coat protein (COP) (COPI component) and shows the higher density of labeling. Conversely, about 90% of the total CD8-KDEL protein is localized in clusters on the endoplasmic reticulum, where significant co-localization with Sec-23p (COPII component) is observed, and unglycosylated and initially O-glycosylated forms apparently constitute a single pool. Altogether, these results suggest that KKXX and KDEL retrieval motifs have different topological effects on theirs own at steady state: the first results in a specific enrichment in the intermediate compartment and cis-Golgi complex, and the latter dictates residency in the endoplasmic reticulum

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore