4.6 Article

Monosialylated biantennary N-glycoforms containing GalNAc-GlcNAc antennae predominate when human EPO is expressed in goat milk

期刊

ARCHIVES OF BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOPHYSICS
卷 470, 期 2, 页码 163-175

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.abb.2007.11.019

关键词

mammary gland; epithelial cells; goat milk; erythropoietin; glycosylation; sialylation; monosialylated biantennary N-glycans

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, our group reported the expression of recombinant human erythropoietin in goat milk (rhEPO-milk) as well as in the mammary epithelial cell line GMGE (EPO-GMGE) by cell culture using the adenoviral transduction system. N-Glycosylation characterization of rhEPO-milk by Normal-Phase HPLC profiling of the fluorophore, 4-aminobenzoic acid-labeled enzymatically released N-glycan pool from rhEPO-goat milk, combined with MALDI, ESI-MS and LC/MS, revealed that low branched, core-fucosylated, N-glycans predominate. The labeled N-glycans were separated into neutral and charged fractions by anion exchange chromatography and the charged N-glycans were found to be mostly alpha 2,6-monosialylated with Neu5Ac or Neu5Gc in a ratio of 1:1. Unlike the N-glycans from rhEPO produced in CHO cells, where the glycans are multiantennary highly sialylated, core-fucosylated oligosaccahrides, or even in the goat mammary gland epithelial cell line cultured in vitro in which multiantennary, core- and outer-arm fucosylated, monosialylated N-glycans are the most abundant species, a large proportion of the N-glycans from rhEPO-milk were monosialylated, biantennary, antennae mostly terminating with the more unusual GalNAc-GlcNAc motive and without outer-arm fucosylation. These findings, emphasizing the difference in the N-glycan repertoire between the rhEPO-milk and EPO-GMGE, are consistent with the principle that glycosylation is cell-type dependent and that the cell environment is crucial as well. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. 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