hook3 (Addgene inc)
Structured Review

Hook3, supplied by Addgene inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 93/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/hook3/product/Addgene inc
Average 93 stars, based on 1 article reviews
Images
1) Product Images from "KIF1C activates and extends dynein movement through the FHF cargo adapter."
Article Title: KIF1C activates and extends dynein movement through the FHF cargo adapter.
Journal: Nature structural & molecular biology
doi: 10.1038/s41594-024-01418-z
Figure Legend Snippet: Fig. 1 | Dynein and KIF1C form coordinated cocomplexes scaffolded by HOOK3. a, Left: the schematics of proteins used in reconstitution of cocomplexes. Dynein and HOOK3 are labeled via N-terminal SNAP tags with TMR and Alexa-647, respectively. KIF1C is fused to a C-terminal eGFP. Right: representation of single-molecule motility assay used in this study. The microtubules are immobilized by sandwiching streptavidin between tubulin- biotin and PLL-PEG-biotin on the glass coverslip. The labeled motor proteins and adapters are then added and their motility imaged. b, Kymographs from TIRF images showing colocalized movement of dynein, HOOK3 and KIF1C.
Techniques Used: Labeling, Motility Assay
Figure Legend Snippet: Fig. 2 | Dynein and KIF1C are codependent in vitro. a, Schematics (top) and representative kymographs (bottom) from TIRF imaging of TMR-labeled DDH; DDHKFL; or dynein, dynactin, HOOK3 and GST–KIF1C stalk–GFP (DDHKS). All experiments were performed in the presence of Lis1. b, A superplot of the TMR– dynein landing rate on microtubules for different cocomplex combinations (as in a). The small dots indicate single microtubules and the large dots indicate experimental averages. n = 165 for DDH, n = 150 for DDHK and n = 171 for DDHKS, where n is number of microtubules over which the landing rate was measured. The boxes show quartiles with whiskers spanning 10–90% of the data, and the median is highlighted by the orange line. The exact P values shown above the graphs were calculated using the Kruskal–Wallis H test followed by a Conover’s post hoc test to evaluate pairwise interactions with a multiple comparison correction applied using Holm–Bonferroni. c, Schematics (top)
Techniques Used: In Vitro, Imaging, Labeling, Comparison
Figure Legend Snippet: Fig. 4 | FHF is an autoinhibited cargo adapter. a, Representative kymographs of TMR–dynein and dynactin in presence of either HOOK31–522 (left), full-length FHF (middle left), no other factor (DD, middle right) or full-length FHF + KIF1C stalk (right). All the samples also included Lis1. b,c, Quantification of processive events (b) and run lengths (c) from eight technical replicates (apart from DD condition, which had four technical replicates). The bars indicate the mean ± s.d., the small dots indicate data for each microtubule and the large dots indicate experimental averages. Statistics were performed on total microtubules, which is n = 120 microtubules for all conditions apart from the DD condition, where n = 60. A total of 15 microtubules were counted per replicate for all conditions. The exact P values shown above the graphs were calculated using the Kruskal– Wallis nonparametric test with Dunn’s multiple comparison. d, Full-length FHF composite model derived from stitched AF predictions and the cryo-EM structure of HOOK3 624–718, FTS and FHIP1B showing DSSO crosslinks (yellow dashes) between HOOK3 N-terminal residues (salmon orange) and HOOK3 C-terminal residues (red) identified using crosslinking mass spectrometry (XL-MS).
Techniques Used: Comparison, Derivative Assay, Cryo-EM Sample Prep, Mass Spectrometry, Structural Proteomics
Figure Legend Snippet: Fig. 5 | KIF1C stalk binds HOOK3 away from the FTS–FHIP1B site and relieves adapter autoinhibition. a, A stitched structural model of the AF-predicted KFL molecule. NL, neck linker; NC, neck coil; NCL, neck coil linker; FHA, forkhead- associated domain; P-Rich, proline-rich region. b, Domain architecture of KIF1C with the KIF1C stalk region highlighted below the main bar. c, The segmented cryo-EM density of FHF bound to a shorter KIF1C stalk (674–922, the dashed blue region), shown at a low-threshold contour level. d, AF model of HOOK3 residues 571–718 bound to KIF1C residues 722–840 (KS 722–840). Note that FTS, FHIP1B and HOOK3 (627–705) models from the cryo-EM structure are superposed on the HOOK3571–718–KS 722–840 prediction to give a composite structure. e, Expansion of AF model in d showing one copy of HOOK3 at the CC3–CC4 junction bound
Techniques Used: Cryo-EM Sample Prep