Kumarapeli and co-workers presented in the FASEB journal an in vivo reporter model for the ubiquitin/ proteasome system (UPS) (1). Similarly to the strategy that we used previously for the generation of our transgenic reporter model (2), they generated mice ubiquitously expressing a modified green fluorescent protein (GFP) that is constitutively targeted for proteasomal degradation. While we welcome new mouse models for the UPS, we regret that the authors, in an attempt to make a direct comparison of the two models based on the literature, misrepresented some data from our earlier study. The authors argue that the proteasome inhibitor provoked in their UPS reporter mice accumulation of the reporter in several tissues that did not respond in earlier experiments with our reporter mice (1). In addition, it is stated that this ‘unresponsiveness’ of tissues is a serious shortcoming of our reporter system. The authors correctly state that they used the same proteasome inhibitor (MG262), the same inhibitor concentration (5 mol/kg) and analyzed the mice at the same time after inhibitor administration (20 hrs), but fail to point out that they injected the inhibitor intravenously while we used intraperitoneal administration (1, 2). We feel it is important to point out to the readers that variations in responsiveness can be alternatively explained as a direct consequence of differences in the bioavailability of the inhibitor due to the route of administration. Moreover, we showed that several primary cultures obtained from our reporter mice (cardiomyocytes, neurons and fibroblasts) properly responded with GFP accumulation to treatment with proteasome inhibitors in vitro (2). Unfortunately, Kumarapeli and co-workers ignored this important observation even though they used the same approach to further validate the responsiveness in their own mouse model (1). We anticipate that, since these mouse models are based on different type of UPS substrates (3), it is indeed likely that there will be variations in the responsiveness of these model substrates (which may reflect how different classes of substrates are handled by the UPS) but would like to emphasize that the data presented by Kumarapeli and co-workers do not allow drawing conclusions on this important issue. We are pleased to see that the usage of GFP reporter substrates of the UPS is becoming more widespread. In vivo UPS models have been instrumental in gaining new insights in pathologic processes as well as actions of proteasome inhibitiors (3–5). We are convinced that, also in the future, the different UPS reporter mice will be important tools to decipher the role of the UPS in various pathologies and are looking forward to detailed studies with UPS reporter mice (6).
Read full abstract