| Title |
Glutamine deprivation initiates reversible assembly of mammalian rods and rings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00018-014-1567-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. John Calise, Wendy C. Carcamo, Claire Krueger, Joyce D. Yin, Daniel L. Purich, Edward K. L. Chan |
| Abstract |
Rods and rings (RR) are protein assemblies composed of cytidine triphosphate synthetase type 1 (CTPS1) and inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase type 2 (IMPDH2), key enzymes in CTP and GTP biosynthesis. Small-molecule inhibitors of CTPS1 or IMPDH2 induce RR assembly in various cancer cell lines within 15 min to hours. Since glutamine is an essential amide nitrogen donor in these nucleotide biosynthetic pathways, glutamine deprivation was examined to determine whether it leads to RR formation. HeLa cells cultured in normal conditions did not show RR, but after culturing in media lacking glutamine, short rods (<2 μm) assembled after 24 h, and longer rods (>5 μm) formed after 48 h. Upon supplementation with glutamine or guanosine, these RR underwent almost complete disassembly within 15 min. Inhibition of glutamine synthetase with methionine sulfoximine also increased RR assembly in cells deprived of glutamine. Taken together, our data support the hypothesis that CTP/GTP biosynthetic enzymes polymerize to form RR in response to a decreased intracellular level of glutamine. We speculate that rod and ring formation is an adaptive metabolic response linked to disruption of glutamine homeostasis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 35% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 July 2014.
All research outputs
#19,201,293
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#3,458
of 4,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,823
of 311,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#60
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,740 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.