Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 206

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of Q/N-rich, polyQ, and non-polyQ amyloids on the de novo formation of the [PSI+] prion in yeast and aggregation of Sup35 in vitro

Open access
Derkatch, Irina L., Uptain, Susan M., Outeiro, Tiago F., Krishnan, Rajaraman, Lindquist, Susan L., Liebman, Susan W.·2004·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Prions are infectious protein conformations that are generally ordered protein aggregates. In the absence of prions, newly synthesized molecules of these same proteins usually maintain a conventional soluble conformation. However, prions occasionally arise even without a homologous prion template. The conformational switch that results in the de novo appearance of yeast prions with glutamine/aspargine (Q/N)-rich prion domains (e.g., [PSI+]), is promoted by heterologous prions with a similar domain (e.g., [RNQ+], also known as [PIN+]), or by overexpression of proteins with prion-like Q-, N-, or Q/N-rich domains. This finding led to the hypothesis that aggregates of heterologous proteins provide an imperfect template on which the new prion is seeded. Indeed, we show that newly forming Sup35 and preexisting Rnq1 aggregates always colocalize when [PSI+] appearance is facilitated by the [RNQ+] prion, and that Rnq1 fibers enhance the in vitro formation of fibers by the prion domain of Sup35 (NM). The proteins do not however form mixed, interdigitated aggregates. We also demonstrate that aggregating variants of the polyQ-containing domain of huntingtin promote the de novo conversion of Sup35 into [PSI+]; whereas nonaggregating variants of huntingtin and aggregates of non-polyQ amyloidogenic proteins, transthyretin, α-synuclein, and synphilin do not. Furthermore, transthyretin and α-synuclein amyloids do not facilitate NM aggregation in vitro, even though in [PSI+] cells NM and transthyretin aggregates also occasionally colocalize. Our data, especially the in vitro reproduction of the highly specific heterologous seeding effect, provide strong support for the hypothesis of cross-seeding in the spontaneous initiation of prion states.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0404968101

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 206

Metadata

Authors
Derkatch, I. L., Uptain, S. M., Outeiro, T. F., Krishnan, R., Lindquist, S. L., & Liebman, S. W.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2004-08-23
Volume
101
Issue
35
Pages
12934-12939
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W1980675329
Cited by
206
References
1
FWCI
4.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of Q/N-rich, polyQ, and non-polyQ amyloids on the de novo formation of the [PSI+] prion in yeast and aggregation of Sup35 in vitro. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0404968101
The paper
Derkatch, I. L., Uptain, S. M., Outeiro, T. F., Krishnan, R., Lindquist, S. L., & Liebman, S. W. (2004). Effects of Q/N-rich, polyQ, and non-polyQ amyloids on the de novo formation of the [PSI+] prion in yeast and aggregation of Sup35 in vitro. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0404968101

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.