4.5 Article

Advanced glycation end product ligands for the receptor for advanced glycation end products: biochemical characterization and formation kinetics

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 324, 期 1, 页码 68-78

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2003.09.013

关键词

receptor for advanced glycation end products; RAGE; advanced glycation end products; AGE; glycation; formation kinetics; Maillard reaction; serum albumin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) accumulate with age and at an accelerated rate in diabetes. AGEs bind cell-surface receptors including the receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE). The dependence of RAGE binding on specific biochemical characteristics of AGEs is currently unknown. Using standardized procedures and a variety of AGE measures, the present study aimed to characterize the AGEs that bind to RAGE and their formation kinetics in vitro. To produce AGEs with varying RAGE binding affinity, bovine serum albumin (BSA) AGEs were prepared with 0.5 M glucose, fructose, or ribose at times of incubation from 0 to 12 weeks or for up to 3 days with glycolaldehyde or glyoxylic acid. The AGE-BSAs were characterized for RAGE binding affinity, fluorescence, absorbance, carbonyl content, reactive free amine content, molecular weight, pentosidine content, and N-epsilon-carboxymethyl lysine content. Ribose-AGEs bound RAGE with high affinity within 1 week of incubation in contrast to glucose- and fructose-AGE, which required 12 and 6 weeks, respectively, to generate equivalent RAGE ligands (IC50 = 0.66, 0.93, and 1.7 muM, respectively). Over time, all of the measured AGE characteristics increased. However, only free amine content robustly correlated with RAGE binding affinity. In addition, detailed protocols for the generation of AGEs that reproducibly bind RAGE with high affinity were developed, which will allow for further study of the RAGE-AGE interaction. (C) 2003 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

4.5
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