Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Disease mechanisms

Topic: Disease mechanisms in lab and animal studies

Protein misfolding is linked to a wide array of human disorders, including Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and type II diabetes1,2. Protective cellular protein quality control (PQC) mechanisms have evolved to selectively recognize misfolded proteins and limit their toxic effects3-9, thus contributing to the maintenance of the proteome (proteostasis). Here we examine how molecular chaperones and the ubiquitin-proteasome system cooperate to recognize and promote the clearance of soluble misfolded proteins. Using a panel of PQC substrates with distinct characteristics and localizations, we define distinct chaperone and ubiquitination circuitries that execute quality control in the cytoplasm and nucleus. In the cytoplasm, proteasomal degradation of misfolded proteins requires tagging with mixed lysine 48 (K48)- and lysine 11 (K11)-linked ubiquitin chains. A distinct combination of E3 ubiquitin ligases and specific chaperones is required to achieve each type of linkage-specific ubiquitination. In the nucleus, however, proteasomal degradation of misfolded proteins requires only K48-linked ubiquitin chains, and is thus independent of K11-specific ligases and chaperones. The distinct ubiquitin codes for nuclear and cytoplasmic PQC appear to be linked to the function of the ubiquilin protein Dsk2, which is specifically required to clear nuclear misfolded proteins. Our work defines the principles of cytoplasmic and nuclear PQC as distinct, involving combinatorial recognition by defined sets of cooperating chaperones and E3 ligases. A better understanding of how these organelle-specific PQC requirements implement proteome integrity has implications for our understanding of diseases linked to impaired protein clearance and proteostasis dysfunction.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 45/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 10 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read left out, no data. 25 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 45 of 100. Total 45 of 100.25 of the 56 points we could judge = 45 of 100

Published in a top-tier journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 10 / 10 Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (Nature)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 2 / 5 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30429547)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 25 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100.
Total 45 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Samant, R. S., Livingston, C. M., Sontag, E. M., & Frydman, J. (2018). Distinct proteostasis circuits cooperate in nuclear and cytoplasmic protein quality control. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0678-x

Vancouver

Samant RS, Livingston CM, Sontag EM, Frydman J. Distinct proteostasis circuits cooperate in nuclear and cytoplasmic protein quality control. Nature. 2018. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0678-x. PMID: 30429547.

BibTeX

@article{samant2018-30429547,
  author  = {Samant, Rahul S and Livingston, Christine M and Sontag, Emily M and Frydman, Judith},
  title   = {{Distinct proteostasis circuits cooperate in nuclear and cytoplasmic protein quality control}},
  journal = {Nature},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1038/s41586-018-0678-x},
  pmid    = {30429547},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0678-x}
}

Related studies in Disease mechanisms

Also tagged “autophagy”

240 studies in the library carry the topic tag “autophagy”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 240 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Disease mechanisms

See all studies in Disease mechanisms →