4.4 Article

Kinetics and Thermodynamics of Glycans and Glycoproteins Binding to Holothuria scabra Lectin: A Fluorescence and Surface Plasmon Resonance Spectroscopic Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUORESCENCE
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 1147-1155

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10895-013-1244-4

关键词

Holothuria scabra; Lectin; Thermodynamic properties; Kinetic analysis; Surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy

资金

  1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi
  2. Department of Biotechnology
  3. CSIR, New Delhi, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Holothuria scabra produces a monomeric lectin (HSL) of 182 kDa. HSL showed strong antibacterial activity and induced bacterial agglutination under in vitro conditions, indicating its role in animals' innate immune responses. Very few lectins have been reported from echinoderms and none of these lectins have been explored in detail for their sugar-binding kinetics. Affinity, kinetics and thermodynamic analysis of glycans and glycoproteins binding to HSL were studied by fluorescence and surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy. Lectin binds with higher affinity to O-linked than N-linked asialo glycans, and the affinities were relatively higher than that for sialated glycans and glycoproteins. T-antigen alpha-methyl glycoside was the most potent ligand having the highest affinity (Ka 8.32 x10(7) M-1). Thermodynamic and kinetic analysis indicated that the binding of galactosyl Tn-antigen and asialo glycans is accompanied by an enthalpic contribution in addition to higher association rate coupled by low activation energy for the association process. Presence of sialic acid or protein matrix inhibits binding. Higher affinity of HSL for O-glycans than N-glycans had biological implications; since HSL specifically recognizes bacteria, which have mucin or O-glycan cognate on their cell surfaces and play a major role in animal innate immunity. Since, HSL had higher affinity to T-antigen, makes it a useful tool for cancer diagnostic purpose.

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

4.4
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