Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: LINGO-1·p75 NTR ·NgR complexes at the cell surface are believed to mediate responses to myelin inhibitors of axon growth. Results: LINGO-1 is intracellular and competes with NgR for binding to p75 NTR . Conclusion: The existence of cell-surface ternary complexes of p75 NTR , NgR, and LINGO-1 cannot be confirmed. Significance: The commonly accepted mechanism for p75 NTR -mediated responses of axons to inhibitory myelin proteins is untenable. Axon outgrowth inhibition in response to trauma is thought to be mediated via the binding of myelin-associated inhibitory factors ( e.g. Nogo-66, myelin-associated glycoprotein, oligodendrocyte myelin glycoprotein, and myelin basic protein) to a putative tripartite LINGO-1·p75 NTR ·Nogo-66 receptor (NgR) complex at the cell surface. We found that endogenous LINGO-1 expression in neurons in the cortex and cerebellum is intracellular. Mutation or truncation of the highly conserved LINGO-1 C terminus altered this intracellular localization, causing poor intracellular retention and increased plasma membrane expression. p75 NTR associated predominantly with natively expressed LINGO-1 containing immature N -glycans, characteristic of protein that has not completed trans -Golgi-mediated processing, whereas mutant forms of LINGO-1 with enhanced plasma membrane expression did not associate with p75 NTR . Co-immunoprecipitation experiments demonstrated that LINGO-1 and NgR competed for binding to p75 NTR in a manner that is difficult to reconcile with the existence of a LINGO-1·p75 NTR ·NgR ternary complex. These findings contradict models postulating functional LINGO-1·p75 NTR ·NgR complexes in the plasma membrane.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meabon et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: