Josue Baeza1, Michael J Smallegan, John M Denu. 1. Department of Biomolecular Chemistry and ‡Wisconsin Institute for Discovery, University of Wisconsin , Madison, Wisconsin 53715, United States.
Abstract
Protein acetylation of lysine ε-amino groups is abundant in cells, particularly within mitochondria. The contribution of enzyme-catalyzed and nonenzymatic acetylation in mitochondria remains unresolved. Here, we utilize a newly developed approach to measure site-specific, nonenzymatic acetylation rates for 90 sites in eight native purified proteins. Lysine reactivity (as second-order rate constants) with acetyl-phosphate and acetyl-CoA ranged over 3 orders of magnitude, and higher chemical reactivity tracked with likelihood of dynamic modification in vivo, providing evidence that enzyme-catalyzed acylation might not be necessary to explain the prevalence of acetylation in mitochondria. Structural analysis revealed that many highly reactive sites exist within clusters of basic residues, whereas lysines that show low reactivity are engaged in strong attractive electrostatic interactions with acidic residues. Lysine clusters are predicted to be high-affinity substrates of mitochondrial deacetylase SIRT3 both in vitro and in vivo. Our analysis describing rate determination of lysine acetylation is directly applicable to investigate targeted and proteome-wide acetylation, whether or not the reaction is enzyme catalyzed.
Protein acetylation of lysine ε-amino groups is abundant in cells, particularly within mitochondria. The contribution of enzyme-catalyzed and nonenzymatic acetylation in mitochondria remains unresolved. Here, we utilize a newly developed approach to measure site-specific, nonenzymatic acetylation rates for 90 sites in eight native purified proteins. Lysine reactivity (as second-order rate constants) with acetyl-phosphate and acetyl-CoA ranged over 3 orders of magnitude, and higher chemical reactivity tracked with likelihood of dynamic modification in vivo, providing evidence that enzyme-catalyzed acylation might not be necessary to explain the prevalence of acetylation in mitochondria. Structural analysis revealed that many highly reactive sites exist within clusters of basic residues, whereas lysines that show low reactivity are engaged in strong attractive electrostatic interactions with acidic residues. Lysine clusters are predicted to be high-affinity substrates of mitochondrial deacetylase SIRT3 both in vitro and in vivo. Our analysis describing rate determination of lysine acetylation is directly applicable to investigate targeted and proteome-wide acetylation, whether or not the reaction is enzyme catalyzed.
Protein acetylation
is a post-translational
modification affecting diverse cellular processes.[1−3] Although regulation
of transcription by reversible acetylation of histone proteins is
well-known, mass spectrometry based proteomic studies have catalogued
thousands of acetylation sites in the mitochondria.[4−8] Unlike nuclear acetylation, which is catalyzed by
several families of lysine acetyltransferases (KATs), direct evidence
of acetyltransferases in mitochondria is lacking. However, mitochondria
do harbor the bona fide deacetylase, SIRT3, a member of the NAD+-dependent deacylases.[9,10] SIRT3 has been shown
to deacetylate and stimulate the activity of a number of metabolic
enzymes, leading to enhanced oxidative metabolism, urea cycle, and
ROS detoxification.[11,12]Lack of evidence for mitochondrial
KATs raises the possibility that lysine acetylation is largely an
uncatalyzed reaction, whereby the unprotonated lysine side-chain reacts
with the thioester of acetyl-CoA.[13] Nonenzymatic
acetylation has been observed on histone proteins.[14−16] Due to higher
pH and increased acetyl-CoA levels in mitochondria, nonenzymatic acetylation
appears to be a viable possibility.[13,15,17−19] Consistent with this idea, mitochondrial
acetyl-CoA metabolism altered by dietary regimens or genetic manipulations
affect lysine acetylation.[4,5,10,13,20,21] Additionally, in vitro incubation
of acetyl-CoA with nonhistone proteins leads to a time dependent increase
in acetylation.[17] Acetyl-phosphate, a prokaryotic
metabolic intermediate, can modify lysine residues in vivo and in vitro, further illustrating the general
plausibility of nonenzymatic acetylation.[18,19] We have previously demonstrated that KAT families, GCN5 and MYST,
utilize general base catalysis to remove a proton from the ε-amino
group, permitting nucleophilic attack on the bound acetyl-CoA.[15,22] In this regard, the pKa of the ε-amino
group has little effect on the enzyme-catalyzed reaction, while the
uncatalyzed reaction is directly dependent on the amount of unprotonated
lysine.[15] Regardless of whether enzymatic
or nonenzymatic acetylation is the primary mode, knowledge of lysine
reactivity toward these acetylating agents would provide crucial insight
in the general mechanism of protein acetylation.To establish
an understanding of lysine reactivity for acetylation, the chemical
kinetics at the site-specific level and among a broad range of proteins
must be quantified. To date, there is only one report that quantifies
the nonenzymatic second order rate for acetylation, which was reported
for lys-36 of histone H3.[16] Here, we utilize
a newly developed mass spectrometry method to investigate the chemical
reactivities (second order rate constants) of 90 lysine sites within
eight purified proteins from mitochondrial and nonmitochondrial sources.
The analysis revealed acetylation reactivities ranging over 3 orders
of magnitude. Structural and bioinformatic analyses explore the molecular
basis for high and low reactivity sites on two mitochondrial proteins
known to be regulated by acetylation.To quantify chemical acetylation
kinetics, we modified a method previously developed for determining
acetylation stoichiometry (Figure 1A).[23] In short, site-specific stoichiometry is determined
by reacting native proteins with acetylating reagent acetyl-CoA (AcCoA)
or acetyl-phosphate (AcP), followed by denaturation and reaction with
heavy-labeled acetic anhydride to chemically acetylate all remaining
unmodified lysines. Proteolyzed samples were subjected to high-resolution
mass spectrometry and acetylation stoichiometry was quantified. Here,
purified protein was incubated with acetylating reagent AcCoA or AcP
for various times or at varied reagent concentrations, followed by
fast buffer exchange to remove any activated acetylating reagent.
Sample processing for quantifying stoichiometry involved denaturation,
reduction, alkylation, and isotopic chemical acetylation of the protein
sample. Enzymatic digestion using GluC and trypsin generated chemically
identical heavy and light peptide pairs, which were resolved by nano-LC-MS/MS,
with subsequent quantification of acetylation stoichiometry in a site-specific
manner.
Figure 1
Kinetic analysis of nonenzymatic lysine acetylation. (A) Diagram
of methodology used to determine nonenzymatic acetylation. Purified
mitochondrial and nonmitochondrial proteins were incubated with varied
concentrations of acetyl-CoA or acetyl-phosphate. At specific time
points, protein is processed for mass spectrometry analysis followed
by kinetic and bioinformatic analysis. (B) Time-dependent acetylation
of bovine serum albumin. Incubation of BSA with 4.5 mM acetyl-CoA
and 8.5 mM acetyl-phosphate over the course of 60 min shows linear
increase in site-specific lysine acetylation. (C) Concentration-dependent
acetylation of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH). Purified GDH was incubated
with acetyl-CoA and acetyl-phosphate for 60 min and analyzed to determine
rate constants. The rate constants for the GDH sites listed in B are
K503–412 × 10–5 M–1 s–1 (AcCoA), and 758 × 10–5 M–1 s–1 (AcP), K110–138
× 10–5 M–1 s–1 (AcCoA), 37.5 × 10–5 M–1 s–1 (AcP), K415–36.4 × 10–5 M–1 s–1 (AcCoA) and 7.4 ×
10–5 M–1 s–1 (AcP). (D) Dot plot of rate constants quantified for α-ketoglutarate
dehydrogenase complex (E1, E2, E3), glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH),
acetyl-coa acetyltransferase 1 (ACAT1), mitochondrial transcription
factor A (TFAM), histone H3.2 (H3), and histone H4 (H4).
Kinetic analysis of nonenzymatic lysine acetylation. (A) Diagram
of methodology used to determine nonenzymatic acetylation. Purified
mitochondrial and nonmitochondrial proteins were incubated with varied
concentrations of acetyl-CoA or acetyl-phosphate. At specific time
points, protein is processed for mass spectrometry analysis followed
by kinetic and bioinformatic analysis. (B) Time-dependent acetylation
of bovine serum albumin. Incubation of BSA with 4.5 mM acetyl-CoA
and 8.5 mM acetyl-phosphate over the course of 60 min shows linear
increase in site-specific lysine acetylation. (C) Concentration-dependent
acetylation of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH). Purified GDH was incubated
with acetyl-CoA and acetyl-phosphate for 60 min and analyzed to determine
rate constants. The rate constants for the GDH sites listed in B are
K503–412 × 10–5 M–1 s–1 (AcCoA), and 758 × 10–5 M–1 s–1 (AcP), K110–138
× 10–5 M–1 s–1 (AcCoA), 37.5 × 10–5 M–1 s–1 (AcP), K415–36.4 × 10–5 M–1 s–1 (AcCoA) and 7.4 ×
10–5 M–1 s–1 (AcP). (D) Dot plot of rate constants quantified for α-ketoglutarate
dehydrogenase complex (E1, E2, E3), glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH),
acetyl-coa acetyltransferase 1 (ACAT1), mitochondrial transcription
factor A (TFAM), histone H3.2 (H3), and histone H4 (H4).To establish progress curves of nonenzymatic acetylation,
we first evaluated the time-dependent acetylation of bovine serum
albumin (BSA) with AcCoA and AcP. With both acetylating reagents,
the site-specific acetylation was linear over 60 min (Figure 1B) and displayed vastly different rates for five
unique lysine sites, highlighting the robustness of the method over
a broad range of chemical reactivities. Once conditions for linearity
were established, we determined the second order rate constants of
site-specific lysine acetylation for the mitochondrial α-ketoglutarate
dehydrogenase complex (αKGDH E1, E2, E3) and glutamate dehydrogenase
using both AcCoA and AcP as the acetylating reagent, while acetyl-CoA
acetyltransferase 1 (ACAT1), mitochondrial transcription factor A
(TFAM), histone H3.2, and histone H4 were treated using AcCoA alone.
Rate constants were determined by varying [AcCoA] or [AcP], plotting
the pseudo-first-order rate constant (kobs) of site-specific acetylation as a function of concentration, and
performing linear regression analysis. The slope of the line designates
the second order rate constant. Figure 1C shows
an example of the rate data for three sites in GDH that were quantified
for both AcCoA and AcP reactions.This kinetic analysis evaluated
90 lysine sites across these eight proteins, including 27 lysine sites
that were detected, but no significant reactivity was calculable (Figure 2). Among the 63 sites with quantifiable reactivity,
rate constants ranged over 3 orders of magnitude, with lys-503 (K503)
on GDH yielding the second highest reactivity with a second order
rate constant of 758 × 10–5 M–1 s–1 (Figure 1C). The least
reactive lysine on GDH (K415) displayed a second order rate constant
of 7.41 × 10–5 M–1 s–1, representing a 100-fold difference among sites on
the same protein. In addition to highlighting the number of sites
quantified per protein, the dot plot depicted in Figure 1D illustrates several important points. AcCoA and AcP show
reactivities that are generally similar, and for each mitochondrial
protein, the range of lysine reactivities within a given protein was
1–2 orders of magnitude (Figure 1D).
To query the biological relevance of differential lysine acetylation
rates, we undertook a meta-analysis of previously published acetylation
fold-change data sets generated by immunoenrichment of digested acetyl-peptides.
Data from four previous proteome scale studies of mouse mitochondria
and embryonic fibroblast cells were gathered, cleaned, and merged
into one data table containing over 26 500 data points from
3836 proteins encompassing five unique physiological perturbations.[4,5,7,8] The
data sets reflect a large swath of biological conditions known to
interact with mitochondrial acetylation. Assembled data were then
merged with the rate constants determined here and ranked according
to decreasing values of reactivities (Figure 3).
Figure 2
Site-specific lysine acetylation rate constants. (A) Second order
rates for measured peptides. (B) Quantified nonreactive peptides are
listed for each substrate condition.
Figure 3
Lysine site reactivity mapped to acetylation fold-change proteomics.
Heatmap of observed sites ranked from high to low reactivity across
five experimental conditions. CD: control diet. CR: calorie restriction.
Acetylation fold-change values were compiled from previous studies
of mouse liver mitochondria and MEF cells. Mouse protein sites that
differ in sequence number from observed proteins are identified by
both sites: K[site]obs/K[site]. Quantified nonreactive
sites are randomly ordered. Sites with high reactivities are more
likely to be found in the acetylation data sets.
Site-specific lysine acetylation rate constants. (A) Second order
rates for measured peptides. (B) Quantified nonreactive peptides are
listed for each substrate condition.Lysine site reactivity mapped to acetylation fold-change proteomics.
Heatmap of observed sites ranked from high to low reactivity across
five experimental conditions. CD: control diet. CR: calorie restriction.
Acetylation fold-change values were compiled from previous studies
of mouse liver mitochondria and MEF cells. Mouse protein sites that
differ in sequence number from observed proteins are identified by
both sites: K[site]obs/K[site]. Quantified nonreactive
sites are randomly ordered. Sites with high reactivities are more
likely to be found in the acetylation data sets.The number of conditions for which we were able to find fold-change
data appears to decrease with decreasing rate constants. The immunoenrichment
methodology used in these prior in vivo studies does
not detect fold-change information for unmodified lysine sites or
for acetylated peptides not enriched because of antibody specificity.
Missing fold-change data likely reflect low or no in vivo acetylation of these low reactive sites. Here, our method of quantifying
site reactivity does not rely on antibodies and therefore permits
determination of both poorly and highly reactive lysine residues.
In the group of 44 lysine residues with either no detectable reactivity
or rates <30 × 10–5 M–1 s–1, only nine (or 12%) of these were detected
in at least one of the biological data sets. In contrast, 40 sites
have second order rate constants >30 × 10–5 M–1 s–1 with 24 (or 29%) of
those sites overlapping with the biological data sets, and importantly
19/24 (or 79%) of those were observed in four different conditions
(Figure 3). For comparison, we determined the
second order rate constant of an unstructured histone H3 peptide with
acetyl-CoA, yielding a value of 261 × 10–5 M–1 s–1 (Figure 2). Lysine sites with the highest reactivity (second order rate constant)
were found on ACAT1 and GDH, and many of these sites appear to dynamically
change in biological conditions that compare SIRT3–/– to WT and caloric restriction (CR) to a control diet (CD; Figure 3). Together, these results suggest that many highly
reactive sites are more likely to exhibit larger fold-changes between
conditions and more likely to be targets of SIRT3.The extensive
cataloguing of lysine reactivity allowed us to map these sites onto
the protein structures of GDH and ACAT1, displaying a reactivity range
that spans over 2 orders of magnitude. By visual inspection, lysine
sites with the highest reactivity (red) tend to protrude away from
the surface of the protein, while low reactivity sites (yellow) tend
to form electrostatic interactions with neighboring residues (Figures 2 and 4). In ACAT1, this point
is illustrated by structurally comparing K84, which yielded no significant
reactivity, with K260, K263, K265, and K270, which displayed rate
constants ranging from 106 × 10–5 to 164 ×
10–5 M–1 s–1. K84 is part of a network of electrostatic interactions involving
aspartate, glutamate, and arginine residues (Figure 4A). As a group, K260, K263, K265, and K270 form a cluster
and do not make significant interactions with the protein surface
(Figure 4A). Quite remarkably, the acetylation
state of K260, K263, K265, and K270 increased ≥10-fold in the
SIRT3–/– mice compare with WT (Figure 3).[4] Equally interesting
is the observation that K260 and K265 acetylation decreases when comparing
refed/fasted as well as obese/lean (Figure 3).[8] These residues are located in the
CoA binding pocket, within 3–5 Å from the ribosyl-phosphate
group of CoA. Site-specific acetyl-lysine incorporation and in vitro biochemical analysis provided direct evidence that
SIRT3-mediated deacetylation of K260ac and K265ac enhanced ACAT1 activity,
likely due to decreased affinity for coenzyme A (CoA) through lost
electrostatic interaction between positively charged lysine and negatively
charged 3′-phosphate of CoA.[8] Thus,
the high intrinsic reactivity toward acetyl-CoA, described here, can
identify functionally relevant acetylation sites, particularly those
regulated by SIRT3.
Figure 4
Visualization of lysine reactivity. (A) Lysine reactivity
mapped onto mouse ACAT1 structure (modeled from 2IB8, 87% identity;
center panel). Reactivities of K260, K263, K265, K270 are shown in
the acetyl-CoA binding pocket (left panel). Nonreactive K84 shown
forming a salt bridge with E82 and D143 (right panel). (B) Lysine
reactivity mapped onto bovine glutamate dehydrogenase (pdb: 3MW9; center panel).
Reactivity of K503 shown near the allosteric GTP binding site (left
panel). The trimeric antennae of GDH showing K477 and K480 reactivities
and their close proximity. Acetylation rate color scale is in Log10
space.
Visualization of lysine reactivity. (A) Lysine reactivity
mapped onto mouseACAT1 structure (modeled from 2IB8, 87% identity;
center panel). Reactivities of K260, K263, K265, K270 are shown in
the acetyl-CoA binding pocket (left panel). Nonreactive K84 shown
forming a salt bridge with E82 and D143 (right panel). (B) Lysine
reactivity mapped onto bovineglutamate dehydrogenase (pdb: 3MW9; center panel).
Reactivity of K503 shown near the allosteric GTP binding site (left
panel). The trimeric antennae of GDH showing K477 and K480 reactivities
and their close proximity. Acetylation rate color scale is in Log10
space.We performed a similar structural
analysis of lysine residues from GDH, which exists as a homohexamer
featuring stacked dimers of trimers. K503 yielded the highest reactivity
with both acetyl-phosphate and acetyl-CoA, and interestingly, this
site is known to be acetylated, succinylated, and malonylated in mice.[5,24] Sourced from bovine liver tissue, we found K503 of GDH was 10.1%
acetylated (Supporting Information Table 1), suggesting that K503 is a highly reactive site both in
vivo and in vitro. K503 sits in the allosteric
GTP-binding pocket and at the base of the antennae region of GDH (Figure 4). The cleft containing K503 has three arginine
residues involved in binding GTP. The charge of this cleft might attract
negatively charged acetyl-phosphate and acetyl-CoA. We observed no
obvious substrate saturation, suggesting a formal binding does not
exist. SIRT5 is reported to function as a mitochondrial desuccinyl
and demalonylase and would likely remove such acyl groups from K503
of GDH.[24] Succinylated/malonylated K503
would be predicted to prevent binding of the allosteric inhibitor
GTP. Interestingly, acetyl-proteomic data for SIRT3 suggests that
this sirtuin does not regulate K503 of GDH (Figure 3). Instead, SIRT3 regulates the acetylation status on the
tips of the two antennae, each of which involves the cluster of six
lysine residues, K477 and K480 from three monomers (Figure 4B). K477 and K480 display a 5- to 10-fold increase
in acetylation in liver mitochondria from SIRT3–/– mice and are also two of the most reactive lysines uncovered in
this study (Figure 3). The six lysines of each
antenna form a positive cluster that does not engage in electrostatic
interaction with other amino acids. The antenna region of GDH is known
to undergo conformational changes during the catalytic cycle and functions
as the conduit for intersubunit communication during allosteric regulation.[25,26] The antennae region projects out from the top of each NAD+ binding domain, as well as intersecting near the GTP allosteric
site (Figure 4B). Given that the antennae function
to transmit catalytic and allosteric information between subunits,[25,26] acetylation of K477 and K480 might alter the allosteric behavior
of GDH. Further studies will be needed to directly investigate the
functional role of K477, K480, and K503 acylation.To systematically
evaluate the structural and chemical features within ACAT1 and GDH
that affect lysine reactivity, we assessed the second order rate constants
as a function of (1) predicted pKa, (2)
B-factor, (3) surface accessibility, and (4) 3-D motifs (Supporting Information Figures 1–4). B-factor
and predicted pKa displayed no significant
trend as a function of the determined rate constants. There was a
more obvious trend in exposed surface area, as reactivity increased
with greater surface exposure. Analysis of neighboring residues (within
7 Å) in 3-D revealed some interesting observations. Among the
lysines for which we have quantified reactivity, glutamate was the
most abundant residue near lysine, but closer proximity (3.4–4
Å) yielded low reactivity, while those 5–6.6 Å away
tended to display higher reactivity. Similar trends were noted with
aspartate. Interestingly, lysine was found within a very narrow distance
range 6–7 Å, and most of the corresponding paired lysines
showed greater than average reactivity.Collectively, our results
suggest that surface exposure and local electrostatic interactions
influence lysine reactivity toward AcP and AcCoA. Surprisingly, pKa values computed from the structure were not
a reliable predictor of lysine reactivity. Similar conclusions were
drawn by Kuhn et al., after assessing in vivo acetylation
sites likely modified by AcP in bacteria.[18] Among the bacterial proteins presumably acetylated by AcP, the linear
sequence around the acetylated lysine tended to favor acidic residues
glutamate and aspartate. Curiously, in vitro lysine
reactivity toward short immobilized peptides favored lysines with
a basic lysine or arginine at −1 and +1 positions. Here, our
results with ACAT1 and GDH suggest that neighboring basic and acidic
residues in 3-D space influence lysine reactivity. Glutamate and aspartate
residues engaged in strong salt bridges with lysine yield poor acetylation
reactivity, while these acidic groups at distances 5–7 Å
permit higher reactivity (Supporting Information
Figure 4). Neighboring lysines found within a range of 6–7
Å appeared among the more reactive lysines. Future studies will
be needed to establish these trends at the proteome level and to chemically
evaluate how local electrostatics direct lysine reactivity.We previously analyzed the substrate specificity of SIRT3 both in vitro and in vivo.[4,27] These
results consistently revealed a strong preference for acetylated lysines
in peptides containing basic residues. Here, we noted that many of
the most reactive lysine residues exist as clusters in three-dimensional
space within 6–12 Å and are exemplified by K477–K480
in GDH, and K260–K263–K265 and K171–K178–K187
in ACAT1. Strikingly, these lysines exhibited some of the largest
fold-changes in acetylation in liver mitochondria when SIRT3 is absent
(Figure 3), suggesting that they represent
bona fide targets of SIRT3. Taken together, highly reactive sites
that tend to exist within clusters of lysine residues are likely high-affinity
substrates of SIRT3. Importantly, the observation that higher chemical
reactivity tracks with the likelihood of dynamic modification in vivo provides evidence that enzyme-catalyzed acylation
might not be necessary to explain the prevalence of protein acetylation
in mitochondria. Furthermore, the second order rate constants measured
in this study are sufficiently fast to be biologically relevant. The
quantitative analysis described here can be directly applied to evaluating
targeted and proteome-wide reactivities.
Methods
Detailed description of methods are described in the Supporting Information.
Authors: Brian T Weinert; Vytautas Iesmantavicius; Sebastian A Wagner; Christian Schölz; Bertil Gummesson; Petra Beli; Thomas Nyström; Chunaram Choudhary Journal: Mol Cell Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 17.970
Authors: William C Hallows; Wei Yu; Brian C Smith; Mark K Devries; Mark K Devires; James J Ellinger; Shinichi Someya; Michael R Shortreed; Tomas Prolla; John L Markley; Lloyd M Smith; Shimin Zhao; Kun-Liang Guan; John M Denu Journal: Mol Cell Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 17.970
Authors: Alexander S Hebert; Kristin E Dittenhafer-Reed; Wei Yu; Derek J Bailey; Ebru Selin Selen; Melissa D Boersma; Joshua J Carson; Marco Tonelli; Allison J Balloon; Alan J Higbee; Michael S Westphall; David J Pagliarini; Tomas A Prolla; Fariba Assadi-Porter; Sushmita Roy; John M Denu; Joshua J Coon Journal: Mol Cell Date: 2012-11-29 Impact factor: 17.970
Authors: Jintang Du; Yeyun Zhou; Xiaoyang Su; Jiu Jiu Yu; Saba Khan; Hong Jiang; Jungwoo Kim; Jimin Woo; Jun Huyn Kim; Brian Hyun Choi; Bin He; Wei Chen; Sheng Zhang; Richard A Cerione; Johan Auwerx; Quan Hao; Hening Lin Journal: Science Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Misty L Kuhn; Bozena Zemaitaitis; Linda I Hu; Alexandria Sahu; Dylan Sorensen; George Minasov; Bruno P Lima; Michael Scholle; Milan Mrksich; Wayne F Anderson; Bradford W Gibson; Birgit Schilling; Alan J Wolfe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michael N Davies; Lilja Kjalarsdottir; J Will Thompson; Laura G Dubois; Robert D Stevens; Olga R Ilkayeva; M Julia Brosnan; Timothy P Rolph; Paul A Grimsrud; Deborah M Muoio Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: Jayme L Dahlin; J Willem M Nissink; Subhashree Francis; Jessica M Strasser; Kristen John; Zhiguo Zhang; Michael A Walters Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Lett Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 2.823
Authors: Hadi R Ali; Mohammed A Assiri; Peter S Harris; Cole R Michel; Youngho Yun; John O Marentette; Frank K Huynh; David J Orlicky; Colin T Shearn; Laura M Saba; Richard Reisdorph; Nichole Reisdorph; Matthew D Hirschey; Kristofer S Fritz Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Josue Baeza; Alexis J Lawton; Jing Fan; Michael J Smallegan; Ian Lienert; Tejas Gandhi; Oliver M Bernhardt; Lukas Reiter; John M Denu Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 4.466