4.6 Article

Recognition of IgG by Fcγ receptor -: The role of Fc glycosylation and the binding of peptide inhibitors

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 276, 期 19, 页码 16478-16483

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M100351200

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently determined crystal structures of the complex between immunoglobulin constant regions (Fc) and their Fc-respective receptors (FcR) have revealed the detailed molecular interactions of this receptor-ligand pair. Of particular interest is the contribution of a glycosylation at Asn(297) of the C(H)2 domain of IgG to receptor recognition. The carbohydrate moieties are found outside the receptor Fe interface in all receptor Fe complex structures. To understand the role of glycosylation in FcR recognition, the receptor affinities of a deglycosylated IgG1 and its Fc fragment were determined by solution binding studies using surface plasmon resonance. The removal of carbohydrates resulted in a non-detectable receptor binding to the Fc alone and a 15- to 20-fold reduction of the receptor binding to IgG1, suggesting that the carbohydrates are important in the function of the Fc gamma RIII. Structurally, the carbohydrates attached to Asn(297) fill the cavity between the C(H)2 domains of Fc functioning equivalently as a hydrophobic core. This may stabilize a favorable lower hinge conformation for the receptor binding, The structure of the complex also revealed the dominance of the lower hinge region in receptor.Fc recognition, To evaluate the potential of designing small molecular ligands to inhibit the receptor function, four lower hinge peptides were investigated for their ability to bind to the receptor Fc gamma RIII, These peptides bind specifically to Fc gamma RIII with affinities 20- to 100-fold lower than IgG1 and are able to compete with Fc in receptor binding. The results of peptide binding illustrate new ways of designing therapeutic compounds to block Fc receptor activation.

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