4.6 Article

Predominant expression of lysosomal N-acylethanolamine-hydrolyzing acid amidase in macrophages revealed by immunochemical studies

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbalip.2007.03.005

关键词

N-acylethanolamine; anandamide; ceramidase; endocannabinoid; lysosome; macrophage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bioactive N-acylethanolamines, including anandamide (an endocannabinoid), N-palmitoylethanolamine (an anti-inflammatory substance), and N-oleoylethanolamine (an anorexic substance) are enzymatically hydrolyzed to fatty acids and ethanolamine. Fatty acid amide hydrolase plays a major role in this reaction. In addition, we cloned cDNA of an isozyme termed N-acylethanolamine-hydrolyzing acid amidase (NAAA) [K. Tsuboi, Y.-X. Sun, Y. Okamoto, N. Araki, T. Tonai, N. Ueda, Molecular characterization of N-acylethanolamine-hydrolyzing acid amidase, a novel member of the choloylglycine hydrolase family with structural and functional similarity to acid ceramidase, J. Biol. Chem. 280 (2005) 11082-11092]. Previous biochemical analyses suggested the expression of NAAA in macrophage cells and various rat tissues including lung and brain. To clarify the physiological significance of NAAA, here we immunochemically studied NAAA for the first time. We developed an antibody specific for rat NAAA, and by Western blotting revealed that NAAA is glycosylated and subjected to specific proteolysis. In alveolar macrophages isolated from rat lung, NAAA was immunocytochemically localized in lysosomes. In the whole lung tissue, only alveolar macrophages were immunostained for NAAA. Conformably, the mRNA and protein levels and activity of NAAA in alveolar macrophages were much higher than those in the whole lung tissue. In brain, intraventricular macrophages were positively stained with anti-NAAA antibody, while microglia appeared to be negative. These results strongly suggested the importance of macrophages as an expression site of NAAA in rat tissues. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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