Molecular Machinery
← Proteasome

Evidence and sources

Each number on the Proteasome page goes back to an experiment or a calculation. Each card shows the result, how it was measured, and where it was published.

Measurements

Loading the measurements…

Big picture numbers

MeasuredPeth 2013, opens the source in a new tab
EstimatePrinciotta 2003, opens the source in a new tabBNID 113783, opens the source in a new tab
CalculatedPrinciotta 2003, opens the source in a new tabBNID 113783, opens the source in a new tab
EstimatePrinciotta 2003, opens the source in a new tabBNID 113783, opens the source in a new tab
MeasuredRock 1994, opens the source in a new tabBNID 116240, opens the source in a new tab
EstimateSchutz 2011, opens the source in a new tab

Structures

  • 1RYP
    Yeast 20S core particle
    The reference core particle. Two copies of each of the 14 subunits build the (alpha1-7 beta1-7)2 barrel. X-ray diffraction, 1.9 Å.
  • 1G0U
    Yeast 20S, gated channel
    The gated-channel structure. No subunit mutation is recorded, so it shows the gate of the wild-type core. X-ray diffraction, 2.4 Å.
  • 2F16
    Yeast 20S with bortezomib
    Shows which subunits the clinical drug blocks, and how a boronic acid binds the N-terminal threonine. X-ray diffraction, 2.8 Å.
  • 5LE5
    Human 20S core particle
    The human core at 1.8 A, for a species comparison with yeast. X-ray diffraction, 1.8 Å.
  • 5LF3
    Human 20S with bortezomib
    The drug bound to the human target. It anchors the subunit numbering used for human inhibitor design. X-ray diffraction, 2.1 Å.
  • 1PMA
    Archaeal 20S proteasome
    The simplest core particle: two subunit types, 14 copies each. It shows the ancestral state of the barrel. X-ray diffraction, 3.4 Å.
  • 6MSB
    Human 26S proteasome, state EA1
    One of seven states from a single substrate-engaged sample. State EA1 is a frame of the translocation cycle and shares chain names with the other six. Electron microscopy, 3 Å.
  • 6MSD
    Human 26S proteasome, state EA2
    One of seven states from a single substrate-engaged sample. State EA2 is a frame of the translocation cycle and shares chain names with the other six. Electron microscopy, 3.2 Å.
  • 6MSE
    Human 26S proteasome, state EB
    One of seven states from a single substrate-engaged sample. State EB is a frame of the translocation cycle and shares chain names with the other six. Electron microscopy, 3.3 Å.
  • 6MSG
    Human 26S proteasome, state EC1
    One of seven states from a single substrate-engaged sample. State EC1 is a frame of the translocation cycle and shares chain names with the other six. Electron microscopy, 3.5 Å.
  • 6MSH
    Human 26S proteasome, state EC2
    One of seven states from a single substrate-engaged sample. State EC2 is a frame of the translocation cycle and shares chain names with the other six. Electron microscopy, 3.6 Å.
  • 6MSJ
    Human 26S proteasome, state ED1
    One of seven states from a single substrate-engaged sample. State ED1 is a frame of the translocation cycle and shares chain names with the other six. Electron microscopy, 3.3 Å.
  • 6MSK
    Human 26S proteasome, state ED2
    One of seven states from a single substrate-engaged sample. State ED2 is a frame of the translocation cycle and shares chain names with the other six. Electron microscopy, 3.2 Å.
  • 6EF3
    Yeast 26S proteasome with ubiquitinated substrate
    The yeast holoenzyme caught on a substrate, for a species comparison with the human states. Electron microscopy, 4.17 Å.

References

  1. 1Groll et al., Nature 1997
  2. 2Loewe et al., Science 1995
  3. 3Seemueller et al., Science 1995
  4. 4Groll et al., Nature Structural Biology 2000
  5. 5Groll et al., Structure 2006
  6. 6Schrader et al., Science 2016
  7. 7Smith et al., Molecular Cell 2007
  8. 8Rabl et al., Molecular Cell 2008
  9. 9Lander et al., Nature 2012
  10. 10Dong et al., Nature 2019
  11. 11de la Pena et al., Science 2018
  12. 12Bard et al., Annual Review of Biochemistry 2018
  13. 13Bard et al., Cell 2019
  14. 14Kisselev et al., Journal of Biological Chemistry 1999
  15. 15Peth et al., Journal of Biological Chemistry 2013
  16. 16Sakamoto et al., PNAS 2001
  17. 17Winter et al., Science 2015
  18. 18Zengerle et al., ACS Chemical Biology 2015
  19. 19Gadd et al., Nature Chemical Biology 2017
  20. 20Kroenke et al., Science 2014
  21. 21Lu et al., Science 2014
  22. 22Fischer et al., Nature 2014
  23. 23Ito et al., Science 2010
  24. 24Nabet et al., Nature Chemical Biology 2018
  25. 25Nishimura et al., Nature Methods 2009
  26. 26Arkinson et al., Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 2025