| Literature DB >> 36237424 |
Prakash Kumar1, Pawan Kumar1, Debabrata Mandal1, Ravichandiran Velayutham1,2.
Abstract
Before the discovery of the proteasome complex, the lysosomes with acidic proteases and caspases in apoptotic pathways were thought to be the only pathways for the degradation of damaged, unfolded, and aged proteins. However, the discovery of 26S and 20S proteasome complexes in eukaryotes and microbes, respectively, established that the degradation of most proteins is a highly regulated ATP-dependent pathway that is significantly conserved across each domain of life. The proteasome is part of the ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS), where the covalent tagging of a small molecule called ubiquitin (Ub) on the proteins marks its proteasomal degradation. The type and chain length of ubiquitination further determine whether a protein is designated for further roles in multi-cellular processes like DNA repair, trafficking, signal transduction, etc., or whether it will be degraded by the proteasome to recycle the peptides and amino acids. Deubiquitination, on the contrary, is the removal of ubiquitin from its substrate molecule or the conversion of polyubiquitin chains into monoubiquitin as a precursor to ubiquitin. Therefore, deubiquitylating enzymes (DUBs) can maintain the dynamic state of cellular ubiquitination by releasing conjugated ubiquitin from proteins and controlling many cellular pathways that are essential for their survival. Many DUBs are well characterized in the human system with potential drug targets in different cancers. Although, proteasome complex and UPS of parasites, like plasmodium and leishmania, were recently coined as multi-stage drug targets the role of DUBs is completely unexplored even though structural domains and functions of many of these parasite DUBs are conserved having high similarity even with its eukaryotic counterpart. This review summarizes the identification & characterization of different parasite DUBs based on in silico and a few functional studies among different phylogenetic classes of parasites including Metazoan (Schistosoma, Trichinella), Apicomplexan protozoans (Plasmodium, Toxoplasma, Eimeria, Cryptosporidium), Kinetoplastidie (Leishmania, Trypanosoma) and Microsporidia (Nosema). The identification of different homologs of parasite DUBs with structurally similar domains with eukaryotes, and the role of these DUBs alone or in combination with the 20S proteosome complex in regulating the parasite survival/death is further elaborated. We propose that small molecules/inhibitors of human DUBs can be potential antiparasitic agents due to their significant structural conservation.Entities:
Keywords: DUB domains; USP; deubiquitination; drug target; in-silico analysis; parasitic disease; ubiquitin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36237424 PMCID: PMC9552668 DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.985178
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol ISSN: 2235-2988 Impact factor: 6.073
Figure 1Biochemical pathway of ubiquitination and deubiquitination process showing the deubiquitinase enzyme activity in the last step.
Figure 2Role of deubiquitination in proteasomal degradation pathway of protein in the proteasome complex.
Functional role of DUBs in different parasites.
| Species Name | GenbankID/UniProtKB/VEuPathDB | Class (DUB domain) | DUBs | Function for Drug target | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| XP_018650214.1 | MJD | Ataxin-3 | Involved in life cycle | ( |
|
| XP_018645017.1 | USP | USP14 | It found in different life cycle stages indicating their involvement in cellular processes required for | ( |
|
| 157958881 | UCH | UCHL5 | Deubiquitination activities | ( |
|
| 13182314 | OTU | OTU68 | Protein degradation | ( |
|
| Gene - PfNF54_110021400 | UCH54/NF54 | PfUCH54 | Deubiquitinating as well as deNeddylating activities | ( |
|
| Gene - PfNF135_140064500 | UCHL3 | PfUCHL3 | Essential for the survival of the parasite | ( |
|
| Gene - PF3D7_1031400 | OTU | mOTU | It helps in the entry of plasmodium into the host cell | ( |
|
| XP_002365447.1 | UCH | TgUCHL3 | Deubiquitinating as well as deNeddylating activity and protein degradation, the cell cycle and transcription progression of the cell cycle | ( |
|
| A0A7J6K192 | OTU | TgOTUD3A | Plasticity of apicomplexan cell cycle architecture.A novel regulator of dendritic cells during infectious and inflammatory diseases. | ( |
|
| XM_013374305.1 | OTU | Et-OTU | Expression at different phase of Eimeria | ( |
|
| XM_001388292.1 | OTU | CpOTU | Phathophysiological role in oocyst stage of the parasite and isopeptidase activity. | ( |
|
| A4HXL8 | OTU | OTULi | Proinflammatory response in stimulated murine macrophages | ( |
|
| A0A7J6YC36 | COP9 | – | Cell cycle regulation. | ( |
|
| R0KME3 | OTU | NbOTU1 | Protein degradation, signal transduction, cell immune response, and deubiquitination activity | ( |
Figure 3The role of different deubiquitinases with their respective domains showing different functions in the parasites.
List of different DUBs domains and their numbers in all the parasites.
| Hidden Markov models (HMM) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WLM | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | 1 | 2 | – |
| OTU | 38 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 3 |
| JOSEPHIN | 9 | 6 | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | – | – | – |
| Peptidase-C12 | 11 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | – | – |
| Peptidase-C48 | 4 | 12 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| Peptidase-C54 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | – |
| Peptidase-C97 | 4 | 1 | – | – | 2 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 2 |
| Peptidase-C65 | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| UCH | 29 | 28 | 10 | 16 | 12 | 9 | 15 | 31 | 10 |
| JAB | 10 | 11 | – | 6 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 14 | 3 |
| Ribosomal_S19e | 3 | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | 7 | – |
| Mov 34 | – | – | 6 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 3 | – | – |
| Total | 114 | 67 | 26 | 46 | 35 | 27 | 36 | 77 | 22 |
Sequence Identity and query coverage by in-silico (BLAST) analysis of different identified DUB domains of parasites compared to humans.
| Parasite | USP14 | USP7 | USP2a | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Query coverage | % Identity | Accession ID | Query coverage | % Identity | Accession ID | Query coverage | % Identity | Accession ID | |
|
| 87% | 33.19% | ETW53368.1 | 44% | 36.28% | ETW37327.1 | 53% | 35.83% | ETW50834.1 |
|
| 77% | 41.91% | XP_018645017.1 | 82% | 48.33% | XP_018648322.1 | 55% | 46.28% | XP_018650394.1 |
|
| 97% | 29.61% | XP_003863105.1 | 44% | 35.51% | AYU82972.1 | 54% | 31.85% | XP_003861970.1 |
|
| 58% | 34.33% | XP_013246507.1 | 26% | 41.18% | XP_013250312.1 | 55% | 38.83% | XP_013253187 |
|
| 98% | 30.14% | KYK69963.1 | 33% | 37.46% | KFG53298.1 | 29% | 38.92% | KFG34937.1 |
|
| 96% | 44.65% | XP_003375066.1 | 94% | 48.33% | KRY40700.1 | 46% | 42.19% | XP_003380019.1 |
|
| ABSENT | 29% | 35.24% | EOB14601.1 | ABSENT | ||||
|
| 99% | 31.78% | QOY43601.1 | 37% | 38.79% | XP_627060.1 | 54% | 30.88% | QOY42883 |
|
| 97% | 33.87% | KAF8294020.1 | 32% | 38.50% | PWU84353.1 | 54% | 34.55% | EKJ03440.1 |
| Parasite | USP28 | CYLD | A20 | ||||||
| Query coverage | % Identity | Accession ID | Query coverage | % Identity | Accession ID | Query coverage | % Identity | Accession ID | |
|
| 8% | 31.82% | KOB64092.1 | ABSENT | ABSENT | ||||
|
| 31% | 25.26% | XP_018648322.1 | ABSENT | 27% | 30.63% | XP_018651129.1 | ||
|
| 27% | 25.98% | AYU82972.1 | ABSENT | ABSENT | ||||
|
| 4% | 35.85% | XP_013250312.1 | ABSENT | ABSENT | ||||
|
| 4% | 39.62% | KGF53298.1 | ABSENT | ABSENT | ||||
|
| 29% | 27.20% | KRY40700.1 | 41% | 37.22% | KRY38886.1 | 34% | 33.86% | KRY33887.1 |
|
| | | | ABSENT | ABSENT | ||||
|
| ABSENT | ABSENT | ABSENT | ||||||
|
| 21% | 29.20% | EKF30393.1 | ABSENT | ABSENT | ||||
| Parasite | UCHL3 | ATAXIN3 | USP2a | ||||||
| Query coverage | % Identity | Accession ID | Query coverage | % Identity | Accession ID | Query coverage | % Identity | Accession ID | |
|
| 96% | 33.33% | ETW54267.1 | 46% | 32.94% | ETW17560.1 | 53% | 35.83% | ETW50834.1 |
|
| 77% | 43.09% | XP_018651143.1 | 78% | 41.72% | XP_018650214.1 | 55% | 46.28% | XP_018650394.1 |
|
| 96% | 36.24% | XP_003861350.1 | ABSENT | 54% | 31.85% | XP_003861970.1 | ||
|
| 65% | 27.71% | XP_013251940.1 | ABSENT | 55% | 38.83% | XP_013253187 | ||
|
| 100% | 36.36% | XP_002365447.1 | 55% | 35.52% | KHF17592.1 | 29% | 38.92% | KFG34937.1 |
|
| 96% | 26.69% | KRY33554.1 | 80% | 38.39% | XP_003374686.1 | 46% | 42.19% | XP_003380019.1 |
|
| ABSENT | ABSENT | ABSENT | ||||||
|
| 90% | 28.44% | XP_627216.1 | 61% | 31.74% | XP_627894.1 | 54% | 30.88% | QOY42883 |
|
| 97% | 39.39% | XP_816838.1 | ABSENT | 54% | 34.55% | EKJ03440.1 | ||