Correct Targeting of Plant ARF GTPases Relies on Distinct Protein Domains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indispensable membrane trafficking events depend on the activity of conserved small guanosine triphosphatases (GTPases), anchored to individual organelle membranes. In plant cells, it is currently unknown how these proteins reach their correct target membranes and interact with their effectors. To address these important biological questions, we studied two members of the ADP ribosylation factor (ARF) GTPase family, ARF1 and ARFB, which are membrane anchored through the same N-terminal myristoyl group but to different target membranes. Specifically, we investigated how ARF1 is targeted to the Golgi and post-Golgi structures, whereas ARFB accumulates at the plasma membrane. While the subcellular localization of ARFB appears to depend on multiple domains including the C-terminal half of the GTPase, the correct targeting of ARF1 is dependent on two domains: an N-terminal ARF1 domain that is necessary for the targeting of the GTPase to membranes and a core domain carrying a conserved MxxE motif that influences the relative distribution of ARF1 between the Golgi and post-Golgi compartments. We also established that the N-terminal ARF1 domain alone was insufficient to maintain an interaction with membranes and that correct targeting is a protein-specific property that depends on the status of the GTP switch. Finally, an ARF1-ARFB chimera containing only the first 18 amino acids from ARF1 was shown to compete with ARF1 membrane binding loci. Although this chimera exhibited GTPase activity in vitro, it was unable to recruit coatomer, a known ARF1 effector, onto Golgi membranes. Our results suggest that the targeting of ARF GTPases to the correct membranes may not only depend on interactions with effectors but also relies on distinct protein domains and further binding partners on the Golgi surface.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".