Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26713263›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2015

Quantitative analysis of the interplay between hsc70 and its co-chaperone HspBP1.

Hicham Mahboubi, Ursula Stochaj

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 93% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hicham MahboubiDepartment of Physiology, McGill University , Montreal, Quebec , Canada.
Ursula StochajDepartment of Physiology, McGill University , Montreal, Quebec , Canada.
McGill University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background. Chaperones and their co-factors are components of a cellular network; they collaborate to maintain proteostasis under normal and harmful conditions. In particular, hsp70 family members and their co-chaperones are essential to repair damaged proteins. Co-chaperones are present in different subcellular compartments, where they modulate chaperone activities. Methods and Results. Our studies assessed the relationship between hsc70 and its co-factor HspBP1 in human cancer cells. HspBP1 promotes nucleotide exchange on hsc70, but has also chaperone-independent functions. We characterized the interplay between hsc70 and HspBP1 by quantitative confocal microscopy combined with automated image analyses and statistical evaluation. Stress and the recovery from insult changed significantly the subcellular distribution of hsc70, but had little effect on HspBP1. Single-cell measurements and regression analysis revealed that the links between the chaperone and its co-factor relied on (i) the physiological state of the cell and (ii) the subcellular compartment. As such, we identified a linear relationship and strong correlation between hsc70 and HspBP1 distribution in control and heat-shocked cells; this correlation changed in a compartment-specific fashion during the recovery from stress. Furthermore, we uncovered significant stress-induced changes in the colocalization between hsc70 and HspBP1 in the nucleus and cytoplasm. Discussion. Our quantitative approach defined novel properties of the co-chaperone HspBP1 as they relate to its interplay with hsc70. We propose that changes in cell physiology promote chaperone redistribution and thereby stimulate chaperone-independent functions of HspBP1.

Indexed as

ChaperoneCo-chaperoneHeat shock proteinQuantitative microscopyRegression analysisSingle-cell analysisStress responseSubcellular protein distribution

Identifiers

PMID26713263
PMCPMC4690350
OpenAlexW2209432468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.