SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Quantitative and combinatory determination of in situ phosphorylation of tau and its FTDP-17 mutants.

Sci Rep · 2016-09-19

DOI: 10.1038/srep33479PMID: 27641626

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Tau is hyperphosphorylated in the brains of patients with tauopathies, such as Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia and parkinsonism linked to chromosome 17 (FTDP-17). However, neither the mechanism of hyperphosphorylation nor its contribution to pathogenesis is known. We applied Phos-tag SDS-PAGE, a phosphoaffinity electrophoresis, to the analysis of tau phosphorylation in vitro by Cdk5, in cultured cells and in mouse brain. Here, we found that Cdk5-p25 phosphorylated tau in vitro at Ser404, Ser235, Thr205 and Ser202 in this order. In contrast in cultured cells, Ser404 was preferentially phosphorylated by Cdk5-p35, whereas Thr205 was not phosphorylated. Ser202 and Ser235 were phosphorylated by endogenous kinases. Tau exhibited ~12 phosphorylation isotypes in COS-7 cells with different combinations of phosphorylation at Thr181, Ser202, Thr231, Ser235 and Ser404. These phosphorylation sites were similar to tau phosphorylated in mouse brains. FTDP-17 tau with a mutation in the C-terminal region had different banding patterns, indicating a different phosphorylation pattern. In particular, it was clear that the R406W mutation causes loss of Ser404 phosphorylation. These results demonstrate the usefulness of the Phos-tag technique in the quantitative analysis of site-specific in vivo phosphorylation of tau and provide detailed information on in situ combinatory phosphorylation of tau.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.