Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 542

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Aggregation of huntingtin in yeast varies with the length of the polyglutamine expansion and the expression of chaperone proteins

Open access
Krobitsch, Sylvia, Lindquist, Susan·2000·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Huntington's disease (HD) is an inherited neurodegenerative disorder caused by polyglutamine (polyQ) expansions in the huntingtin (Ht) protein. A hallmark of HD is the proteolytic production of an N-terminal fragment of Ht, containing the polyQ repeat, that forms aggregates in the nucleus and cytoplasm of affected neurons. Proteins with longer polyQ repeats aggregate more rapidly and cause disease at an earlier age, but the mechanism of aggregation and its relationship to disease remain unclear. To provide a new, genetically tractable model system for the study of Ht, we engineered yeast cells to express an N-terminal fragment of Ht with different polyQ repeat lengths of 25, 47, 72, or 103 residues, fused to green fluorescent protein. The extent of aggregation varied with the length of the polyQ repeat: at the two extremes, most HtQ103 protein coalesced into a single large cytoplasmic aggregate, whereas HtQ25 exhibited no sign of aggregation. Mutations that inhibit the ubiquitin/proteasome pathway at three different steps had no effect on the aggregation of Ht fragments in yeast, suggesting that the ubiquitination of Ht previously noted in mammalian cells may not inherently be required for polyQ length-dependent aggregation. Changing the expression levels of a wide variety of chaperone proteins in yeast neither increased nor decreased Ht aggregation. However, Sis1, Hsp70, and Hsp104 overexpression modulated aggregation of HtQ72 and HtQ103 fragments. More dramatically, the deletion of Hsp104 virtually eliminated it. These observations establish yeast as a system for studying the causes and consequences of polyQ-dependent Ht aggregation.

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.97.4.1589

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 542

Metadata

Authors
Krobitsch, S., & Lindquist, S.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2000-02-15
Volume
97
Issue
4
Pages
1589-1594
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2160779871
Cited by
542
References
4
FWCI
10.42
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: Aggregation of huntingtin in yeast varies with the length of the polyglutamine expansion and the expression of chaperone proteins. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.97.4.1589
The paper
Krobitsch, S., & Lindquist, S. (2000). Aggregation of huntingtin in yeast varies with the length of the polyglutamine expansion and the expression of chaperone proteins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.97.4.1589

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.