4.5 Article

Molecular cloning and functional characterization of the OCTN2 transporter at the RBE4 cells, an in vitro model of the blood-brain barrier

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 968, 期 1, 页码 69-79

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(02)04271-3

关键词

organic cation transporter; carnitine transporter; blood-brain barrier; in vitro model; gene expression; TEA; MPP+; acetyl -L-carnitine; propionyl-L-carnitine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The transport Of L-carnitine (4-N-trimethylamino-3-hydroxybutyric acid), a compound known to be transported by the organic cation transporter/carnitine transporter OCTN2, was studied in immortalized rat brain endothelial cells (RBE4). The cells were found to take up L-carnitine by a sodium-dependent process. This uptake process was saturable with an apparent Michaelis-Menten constant for L-carnitine of 54+/-10 muM and a maximal velocity of 215+/-35 pmol/mg protein/h. Besides L-carnitine, the cells also took up acetyl-L-carnitine and propionyl-L-carnitine in a sodium-dependent manner and TEA in a sodium-independent manner. RT-PCR with primers specific for the rat OCTN2 transporter revealed the existence of OCTN2 mRNA in RBE4 cells. Screening of a cDNA library from RBE4 cells with rat OCTN2 cDNA as a probe identified a positive clone which showed, when expressed in HeLa cells, the functional characteristics of OCTN2. The HeLa cells expressing the RBE4 OCTN2 cDNA showed a sixfold increase in L-carnitine uptake and a fourfold increase in TEA uptake in a sodium-containing buffer. Typical inhibitors for organic cation transporters (e.g. MPP+ or TEA) showed an inhibitory effect on the transport Of L-carnitine and TEA into the transfected cells. Similarly, unlabeled L-carnitine inhibited the transport of [H-3]-L-carnitine and [C-14]TEA in transfected HeLa cells. It is concluded that RBE4 cells, a widely used in vitro model of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), express the organic cation/carnitine transporter OCTN2. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science 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

4.5
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