4.4 Article

Affinity of galectin-8 and its carbohydrate recognition domains for ligands in solution and at the cell surface

期刊

GLYCOBIOLOGY
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 663-676

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/glycob/cwm026

关键词

affinity; cell surface; galectin; sialic acid; specificity

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [P01 HL085607, P01 HL085607-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM62116] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Galectin-8 has two different carbohydrate recognition domains (CRDs), the N-terminal Gal-8N and the C-terminal Gal-8C linked by a peptide, and has various effects on cell adhesion and signaling. To understand the mechanism for these effects further, we compared the binding activities of galectin-8 in solution with its binding and activation of cells. We used glycan array analysis to broaden the specificity profile of the two galectin-8 CRDs, as well as intact galectin-8s (short and long linker), confirming the unique preference for sulfated and sialylated glycans of Gal-8N. Using a fluorescence anisotropy assay, we examined the solution affinities for a subset of these glycans, the highest being 50 nM for NeuAc alpha 2,3Lac by Gal-8N. Thus, carbohydrate-protein interactions can be of high affinity without requiring multivalency. More importantly, using fluorescence polarization, we also gained information on how the affinity is built by multiple weak interactions between different fragments of the glycan and its carrier molecule and the galectin CRD subsites (A-E). In intact galectin-8 proteins, the two domains act independently of each other in solution, whereas at a surface they act together. Ligands with moderate or weak affinity for the isolated CRI)s on the array are bound strongly by intact galectin-8s. Also galectin-8 binding and signaling at cell surfaces can be explained by combined binding of the two CRI)s to low or medium affinity ligands, and their highest affinity ligands, such as sialylated galactosides, are not required.

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