4.6 Article

Genetic Analysis of the Heparan Modification Network in Caenorhabditis elegans

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 286, 期 19, 页码 16824-16831

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M111.227926

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [5R01HD055380, RC1GM090825, 5T32NS07098]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heparan sulfates (HS) are highly modified sugar polymers in multicellular organisms that function in cell adhesion and cellular responses to protein signaling. Functionally distinct, cell type-dependent HS modification patterns arise as the result of a conserved network of enzymes that catalyze deacetylations, sulfations, and epimerizations in specific positions of the sugar residues. To understand the genetic interactions of the enzymes during the HS modification process, we have measured the composition of HS purified from mutant strains of Caenorhabditis elegans. From these measurements we have developed a genetic network model of HS modification. We find the interactions to be highly recursive positive feed-forward and negative feedback loops. Our genetic analyses show that the HS C-5 epimerase hse-5, the HS 2-O-sulfotransferase hst-2, or the HS 6-O-sulfotransferase hst-6 inhibit N-sulfation. In contrast, hse-5 stimulates both 2-O- and 6-O-sulfation and, hst-2 and hst-6 inhibit 6-O- and 2-O-sulfation, respectively. The effects of hst-2 and hst-6 on N-sulfation, 6-O-sulfation, and 2-O-sulfation appear largely dependent on hse-5 function. This core of regulatory interactions is further modulated by 6-O-endosulfatase activity (sul-1). 47% of all 6-O-sulfates get removed from HS and this editing process is dependent on hst-2, thereby providing additional negative feedback between 2-O- and 6-O-sulfation. These findings suggest that the modification patterns are highly sensitive to the relative composition of the HS modification enzymes. Our comprehensive genetic analysis forms the basis of understanding the HS modification network in metazoans.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据