4.3 Article

N-linked glycan profiling of GGTA1/CMAH knockout pigs identifies new potential carbohydrate xenoantigens

期刊

XENOTRANSPLANTATION
卷 20, 期 5, 页码 277-291

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/xen.12047

关键词

asparagine-linked; glycome; MALDI-TOF; TOF; permethylation; serum; xenotransplantation

资金

  1. Indiana University Health Transplant Institute
  2. NIH [R01 GM103428]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe temporary or long-term xenotransplantation of pig organs into people would save thousands of lives each year if not for the robust human antibody response to pig carbohydrates. Genetically engineered pigs deficient in galactose 1,3 galactose (gene modified: GGTA1) and N-glycolylneuraminic acid (gene modified: CMAH) have significantly improved cell survival when challenged by human antibody and complement in vitro. There remains, however, a significant portion of human antibody binding. MethodsTo uncover additional xenoantigens, we compared the asparagine-linked (N-linked) glycome from serum proteins of humans, domestic pigs, GGTA1 knockout pigs, and GGTA1/CMAH knockout pigs using mass spectrometry. Carbohydrate structures were determined with assistance from GlycoWorkbench, Cartoonist, and SimGlycan software by comparison to existing database entries and collision-induced dissociation fragmentation data. ResultsMatrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS) analysis of reduced and solid-phase permethylated glycans resulted in the detection of high-mannose, hybrid, and complex type N-linked glycans in the 1000-4500m/z ion range. GGTA1/CMAH knockout pig samples had increased relative amounts of high-mannose, incomplete, and xylosylated N-linked glycans. All pig samples had significantly higher amounts of core and possibly antennae fucosylation. ConclusionsWe provide for the first time a comparison of the serum protein glycomes of the human, domestic pig, and genetically modified pigs important to xenotransplantation.

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

4.3
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