Pex19p Binds Pex30p and Pex32p at Regions Required for Their Peroxisomal Localization but Separate from Their Peroxisomal Targeting Signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assembly of proteins in the peroxisomal membrane is a multistep process requiring their recognition in the cytosol, targeting to and insertion into the peroxisomal membrane, and stabilization within the lipid bilayer. The peroxin Pex19p has been proposed to be either the receptor that recognizes and targets newly synthesized peroxisomal membrane proteins (PMP) to the peroxisome or a chaperone required for stabilization of PMPs at the peroxisomal membrane. Differentiating between these two roles for Pex19p could be achieved by determining whether the peroxisomal targeting signal (PTS) and the region of Pex19p binding of a PMP are the same or different. We addressed the role for Pex19p in the assembly of two PMPs, Pex30p and Pex32p, of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Pex30p and Pex32p control peroxisome size and number but are dispensable for peroxisome formation. Systematic truncations from the carboxyl terminus, together with in-frame deletions of specific regions, have identified PTSs essential for targeting Pex30p and Pex32p to peroxisomes. Both Pex30p and Pex32p interact with Pex19p in regions that do not overlap with their PTSs. However, Pex19p is required for localizing Pex30p and Pex32p to peroxisomes, because mutations that disrupt the interaction of Pex19p with Pex30p and Pex32p lead to their mislocalization to a compartment other than peroxisomes. Mutants of Pex30p and Pex32p that localize to peroxisomes but produce cells exhibiting the peroxisomal phenotypes of cells lacking these proteins demonstrate that the regions in these proteins that control peroxisomal targeting and cell biological activity are separable. Together, our data show that the interaction of Pex19p with Pex30p and Pex32p is required for their roles in peroxisome biogenesis and are consistent with a chaperone role for Pex19p in stabilizing or maintaining membrane proteins in peroxisomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".