Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Phospho-DARPP-32 (where DARPP-32 is dopamine- and cAMP-regulated phosphoprotein, Mr 32,000), its homolog, phospho-inhibitor-1, and inhibitor-2 are potent inhibitors (IC50 approximately 1 nM) of the catalytic subunit of protein phosphatase-1 (PP1). Our previous studies have indicated that a region encompassing residues 6-11 (RKKIQF) and phospho-Thr-34, of phospho-DARPP-32, interacts with PP1. However, little is known about specific regions of inhibitor-2 that interact with PP1. We have now characterized in detail the interaction of phospho-DARPP-32 and inhibitor-2 with PP1. Mutagenesis studies indicate that within DARPP-32 Phe-11 and Ile-9 play critical roles, with Lys-7 playing a lesser role in inhibition of PP1. Pro-33 and Pro-35 are also important, as is the number of amino acids between residues 7 and 11 and phospho-Thr-34. For inhibitor-2, deletion of amino acids 1-8 (I2-(9-204)) or 100-204 (I2-(1-99)) had little effect on the ability of the mutant proteins to inhibit PP1. Further deletion of residues 9-13 (I2-(14-204)) resulted in a large decrease in inhibitory potency (IC50 approximately 800 nM), whereas further COOH-terminal deletion (I2-(1-84)) caused a moderate decrease in inhibitory potency (IC50 approximately 10 nM). Within residues 9-13 (PIKGI), mutagenesis indicated that Ile-10, Lys-11, and Ile-13 play critical roles. The peptide I2-(6-20) antagonized the inhibition of PP-1 by inhibitor-2 but had no effect on inhibition by phospho-DARPP-32. In contrast, the peptide D32-(6-38) antagonized the inhibition of PP1 by phospho-DARPP-32, inhibitor-2, and I2-(1-120) but not I2-(85-204). These results indicate that distinct amino acid motifs contained within the NH2 termini of phospho-DARPP-32 (KKIQF, where italics indicate important residues) and inhibitor-2 (IKGI) are critical for inhibition of PP1. Moreover, residues 14-84 of inhibitor-2 and residues 6-38 of phospho-DARPP-32 share elements that are important for interaction with PP1.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: