Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Calpain autolyses in the presence of Ca2+. In the case of m-calpain (80 + 30 kDa) the first product is an 80 + 18 kDa species which has an intact large subunit and the C-terminal Ca(2+)-binding domain of the small subunit. It was possible to bind E64 into the active site of calpain in the presence of Ca2+ before cleavage of either calpain subunit. This suggests that the active site is functional before any autolysis has occurred and that calpain is not a proenzyme. Prolonged autolysis generates several fragments including a 42 kDa active-site domain fragment that showed no proteolytic activity and Ca(2+)-binding domain fragments. Some of the Ca(2+)-binding domain fragments were found to exist as heterodimers (23 + 18 kDa and 22 + 18 kDa), with the Ca(2+)-binding domain of the large subunit interacting with the Ca(2+)-binding domain of the small subunit. These species were true heterodimers, as they showed co-elution of the two Ca(2+)-binding domains on ion-exchange and gel-filtration chromatography, and immunoprecipitation of both polypeptides with an antiserum specific for the small-subunit Ca(2+)-binding domain. The generation of the dimer species after only 15 min autolysis suggests that the interaction between the Ca(2+)-binding domains is present in the native calpain structure. The interaction of calpain with calpastatin was investigated using an assay based on binding to calpastatin-Sepharose and a competitive binding assay. Calpain, active-site-blocked calpain and calpain fragments generated by autolysis were studied. Calpain bound to calpastatin in the presence of Ca2+; however, the isolated active-site-containing 80 kDa large subunit (proteolytically inactive), a 42 kDa active-site-containing fragment (proteolytically inactive) and Ca(2+)-binding domain fragments of calpain did not. Active-site-blocked calpain bound to calpastatin, but with an affinity reduced by approximately two orders of magnitude when compared with native calpain.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Crawford et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: