4.2 Article

Two glycosylation alterations of mouse intestinal mucins due to infection caused by the parasite Nippostrongylus brasiliensis

期刊

GLYCOCONJUGATE JOURNAL
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 67-75

出版社

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1022589015687

关键词

mucin; O-glycosylation; oligosaccharides; parasite infection; fucosyltransferase

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The glycosylation alterations of mouse small intestinal mucins during a 12-day infectious cycle caused by the parasite Nippostrongylus brasiliensis have been studied. The guanidinium chloride insoluble mucins were isolated at day 0 to 12 from the small intestine of infected and non-infected C57BL/6 mice. The O-linked oligosaccharides were released by reductive beta-elimination from the mucins and separated into neutral, sialylated and sulfated fractions. All fractions were analyzed by monosaccharide composition analysis and the neutral oligosaccharides were structurally characterized by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Two oligosaccharides containing blood group H-type epitopes (Fucalpha1-2Gal-) were transiently expressed with a maximum at day 6. Additional oligosaccharides with the common structure HexNAcGal-3GalNAcol were transiently induced with a maximum at day 10. Northern blot analysis on total RNA showed a transient expression at day 4-6 of the Fut2 gene encoding a Fucalpha1-2 fucosyltransferase, probably responsible for the detected blood group H-type epitopes. Comparisons with the corresponding infection in rat studied previously, revealed structurally different alterations, although occurring as transient events in both species. Both showed an induced blood group-type transferase halfway through the infection (a blood group A transferase in rat) and an induced transferase adding a terminal GalNAc (to a sialic acid-containing epitope in rat) towards the end of the infection. These differences between closely related species suggest rapid evolutionary alterations in glycosyltransferase expression.

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

4.2
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