Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25336455›Full record

ArticlemBio2014

Functional analysis of rhomboid proteases during Toxoplasma invasion.

Bang Shen, Jeffrey S Buguliskis, Tobie D Lee, L David Sibley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mBio, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. HarnessingAnnals of medicine · 2026
    Review
  2. Exploring the repertoire of rhomboid proteases inFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Targeting theHeliyon · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Microorganisms · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Discovery of New Microneme Proteins inFrontiers in veterinary science · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The Journal of biological chemistry · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bang ShenDepartment of Molecular Microbiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Jeffrey S BuguliskisDepartment of Molecular Microbiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Tobie D LeeDepartment of Molecular Microbiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
L David SibleyDepartment of Molecular Microbiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA sibley@wusm.wustl.edu.
Washington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

PROTEIN SECRETION &INTRACELLULAR SURVIVAL BY TOXOPLASMAR01AI034036 · NIAID · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI SIBLEY, L. DAVID · 1993 to 2019
$7.9M
NIAID NIH HHS AI034036NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI034036
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Host cell invasion by Toxoplasma gondii and other apicomplexan parasites requires transmembrane adhesins that mediate binding to receptors on the substrate and host cell to facilitate motility and invasion. Rhomboid proteases (ROMs) are thought to cleave adhesins within their transmembrane segments, thus allowing the parasite to disengage from receptors and completely enter the host cell. To examine the specific roles of individual ROMs during invasion, we generated single, double, and triple knockouts for the three ROMs expressed in T. gondii tachyzoites. Analysis of these mutants demonstrated that ROM4 is the primary protease involved in adhesin processing and host cell invasion, whereas ROM1 or ROM5 plays negligible roles in these processes. Deletion of ROM4 blocked the shedding of adhesins such as MIC2 (microneme protein 2), causing them to accumulate on the surface of extracellular parasites. Increased surface adhesins led to nonproductive attachment, altered gliding motility, impaired moving junction formation, and reduced invasion efficiency. Despite the importance of ROM4 for efficient invasion, mutants lacking all three ROMs were viable and MIC2 was still efficiently removed from the surface of invaded mutant parasites, implying the existence of ROM-independent mechanisms for adhesin removal during invasion. Collectively, these results suggest that although ROM processing of adhesins is not absolutely essential, it is important for efficient host cell invasion by T. gondii. Importance: Apicomplexan parasites such as Toxoplasma gondii express surface proteins that bind host cell receptors to aid invasion. Many of these adhesins are subject to cleavage by rhomboid proteases (ROMs) within their transmembrane segments during invasion. Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of adhesin cleavage for parasite invasion and proposed that the ROMs responsible for processing would be essential for parasite survival. In T. gondii, ROM5 was thought to be the critical ROM for adhesin shedding due to its robust protease activity in vitro and posterior localization on the parasite surface. Here, we knocked out all three ROMs in T. gondii tachyzoites and found that ROM4, but not ROM5, was key for adhesin cleavage. However, none of the ROMs individually or in combination was essential for cell entry, further emphasizing that essential pathways such as invasion typically rely on redundant pathways to ensure survival.

Indexed as

EndocytosisAnimalsCell AdhesionCells, CulturedDisease Models, AnimalFemaleFibroblastsGene Knockout TechniquesHumansMicePeptide HydrolasesProtozoan ProteinsSurvival AnalysisToxoplasmaToxoplasmosisPeptide HydrolasesProtozoan ProteinsROM1 protein, Toxoplasma gondiiROM4 protein, Toxoplasma gondiiROM5 protein, Toxoplasma gondii

Identifiers

PMID25336455
PMCPMC4212836
OpenAlexW2158950061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.