7 research outputs found
Specific interactions of PP2A and PP2A-like phosphatases with the yeast PTPA homologues, Ypa1 and Ypa2
To elucidate the specific biological role of the yeast homologues of PTPA (phosphatase 2A phosphatase activator), Ypa1 and Ypa2 (where Ypa stands for yeast phosphatase activator), in the regulation of PP2A (protein phosphatase 2A), we investigated the physical interaction of both Ypa proteins with the catalytic subunit of the different yeast PP2A-like phosphatases. Ypa1 interacts specifically with Pph3, Sit4 and Ppg1, whereas Ypa2 binds to Pph21 and Pph22. The Ypa1 and Ypa2 proteins do not compete with Tap42 (PP2A associating protein) for binding to PP2A family members. The interaction of the Ypa proteins with the catalytic subunit of PP2A-like phosphatases is direct and independent of other regulatory subunits, implicating a specific function for the different PP2A–Ypa complexes. Strikingly, the interaction of Ypa2 with yeast PP2A is promoted by the presence of Ypa1, suggesting a positive role of Ypa1 in the regulation of PP2A association with other interacting proteins. As in the mammalian system, all yeast PP2A-like enzymes associate as an inactive complex with Yme (yeast methyl esterase). Ypa1 as well as Ypa2 can reactivate all these inactive complexes, except Pph22-Yme. Ypa1 is the most potent activator of PP2A activity, suggesting that there is no direct correlation between activation potential and binding capacity
Recommended from our members
Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of fluoxetine as an antiviral for acute flaccid myelitis.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of fluoxetine for proven or presumptive enterovirus (EV) D68-associated acute flaccid myelitis (AFM). METHODS: A multicenter cohort study of US patients with AFM in 2015-2016 compared serious adverse events (SAEs), adverse effects, and outcomes between fluoxetine-treated patients and untreated controls. Fluoxetine was administered at the discretion of treating providers with data gathered retrospectively. The primary outcome was change in summative limb strength score (SLSS; sum of Medical Research Council strength in all 4 limbs, ranging from 20 [normal strength] to 0 [complete quadriparesis]) between initial examination and latest follow-up, with increased SLSS reflecting improvement and decreased SLSS reflecting worsened strength. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients with AFM from 12 centers met study criteria. Among 30 patients exposed to fluoxetine, no SAEs were reported and adverse effect rates were similar to unexposed patients (47% vs 65%, p = 0.16). The 28 patients treated with >1 dose of fluoxetine were more likely to have EV-D68 identified (57.1% vs 14.3%, p < 0.001). Their SLSS was similar at initial examination (mean SLSS 12.9 vs 14.3, p = 0.31) but lower at nadir (mean SLSS 9.25 vs 12.82, p = 0.02) and latest follow-up (mean SLSS 12.5 vs 16.4, p = 0.005) compared with the 28 patients receiving 1 (n = 2) or no (n = 26) doses. In propensity-adjusted analysis, SLSS from initial examination to latest follow-up decreased by 0.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.8 to +1.4) in fluoxetine-treated patients and increased by 2.5 (95% CI +0.7 to +4.4) in untreated patients (p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine was well-tolerated. Fluoxetine was preferentially given to patients with AFM with EV-D68 identified and more severe paralysis at nadir, who ultimately had poorer long-term outcomes. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with EV-D68-associated AFM, fluoxetine is well-tolerated and not associated with improved neurologic outcomes
Recommended from our members
Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of fluoxetine as an antiviral for acute flaccid myelitis.
ObjectiveTo determine the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of fluoxetine for proven or presumptive enterovirus (EV) D68-associated acute flaccid myelitis (AFM).MethodsA multicenter cohort study of US patients with AFM in 2015-2016 compared serious adverse events (SAEs), adverse effects, and outcomes between fluoxetine-treated patients and untreated controls. Fluoxetine was administered at the discretion of treating providers with data gathered retrospectively. The primary outcome was change in summative limb strength score (SLSS; sum of Medical Research Council strength in all 4 limbs, ranging from 20 [normal strength] to 0 [complete quadriparesis]) between initial examination and latest follow-up, with increased SLSS reflecting improvement and decreased SLSS reflecting worsened strength.ResultsFifty-six patients with AFM from 12 centers met study criteria. Among 30 patients exposed to fluoxetine, no SAEs were reported and adverse effect rates were similar to unexposed patients (47% vs 65%, p = 0.16). The 28 patients treated with >1 dose of fluoxetine were more likely to have EV-D68 identified (57.1% vs 14.3%, p < 0.001). Their SLSS was similar at initial examination (mean SLSS 12.9 vs 14.3, p = 0.31) but lower at nadir (mean SLSS 9.25 vs 12.82, p = 0.02) and latest follow-up (mean SLSS 12.5 vs 16.4, p = 0.005) compared with the 28 patients receiving 1 (n = 2) or no (n = 26) doses. In propensity-adjusted analysis, SLSS from initial examination to latest follow-up decreased by 0.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.8 to +1.4) in fluoxetine-treated patients and increased by 2.5 (95% CI +0.7 to +4.4) in untreated patients (p = 0.015).ConclusionFluoxetine was well-tolerated. Fluoxetine was preferentially given to patients with AFM with EV-D68 identified and more severe paralysis at nadir, who ultimately had poorer long-term outcomes.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with EV-D68-associated AFM, fluoxetine is well-tolerated and not associated with improved neurologic outcomes