FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1488995655> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1488995655 endingPage "4105" @default.
• W1488995655 startingPage "4100" @default.
• W1488995655 abstract "Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) binding protein (LBP) is a lipid transfer protein that catalyzes transfer of LPS monomers from micelles to a binding site on soluble CD14 (sCD14) and transfer of LPS from LPS•sCD14 complexes to HDL particles. To characterize the first of these two reactions, LPS covalently derivatized with the fluorophore, boron dipyrromethene difluoride (BODIPY), was used to monitor LBP-catalyzed movement of LPS in real time. The fluorescence efficiency of micelles of BODIPY-LPS was low but was strongly increased upon dissolution in detergent or upon binding to sCD14. Spontaneous binding of BODIPY-LPS to sCD14 was very slow but was accelerated by substoichiometric concentration of LBP, and the rate of binding was measured under a variety of conditions. LBP-catalyzed transfer was first order with respect to both sCD14 and LPS concentration, and the apparent Km values were 1~2 μg/ml for sCD14 and 100 ng/ml for LPS. The maximum turnover number for LBP was approximately 150 molecules of LPS min-1LBP-1. LBP alone caused a small but measurable increase in the fluorescence of BODIPY-LPS, suggesting that it bound LPS aggregates but did not readily remove LPS monomers. The subsequent addition of sCD14 caused a large fluorescence increase, suggesting transfer of BODIPY-LPS to sCD14. These and other observations suggest that LPS is transferred by an ordered ternary complex reaction mechanism in which LBP transfers LPS monomer from LPS aggregates to sCD14 without dissociating from the LPS aggregate. Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) binding protein (LBP) is a lipid transfer protein that catalyzes transfer of LPS monomers from micelles to a binding site on soluble CD14 (sCD14) and transfer of LPS from LPS•sCD14 complexes to HDL particles. To characterize the first of these two reactions, LPS covalently derivatized with the fluorophore, boron dipyrromethene difluoride (BODIPY), was used to monitor LBP-catalyzed movement of LPS in real time. The fluorescence efficiency of micelles of BODIPY-LPS was low but was strongly increased upon dissolution in detergent or upon binding to sCD14. Spontaneous binding of BODIPY-LPS to sCD14 was very slow but was accelerated by substoichiometric concentration of LBP, and the rate of binding was measured under a variety of conditions. LBP-catalyzed transfer was first order with respect to both sCD14 and LPS concentration, and the apparent Km values were 1~2 μg/ml for sCD14 and 100 ng/ml for LPS. The maximum turnover number for LBP was approximately 150 molecules of LPS min-1LBP-1. LBP alone caused a small but measurable increase in the fluorescence of BODIPY-LPS, suggesting that it bound LPS aggregates but did not readily remove LPS monomers. The subsequent addition of sCD14 caused a large fluorescence increase, suggesting transfer of BODIPY-LPS to sCD14. These and other observations suggest that LPS is transferred by an ordered ternary complex reaction mechanism in which LBP transfers LPS monomer from LPS aggregates to sCD14 without dissociating from the LPS aggregate. Mammals mount an innate immune response to Gram-negative bacteria by recognizing lipopolysaccharide (LPS, endotoxin), ( 1The abbreviations used are: LPSlipopolysaccharideBODIPYboron dipyrromethene difluorideBODIPY-LPSBODIPY-labeled LPSLBPLPS binding proteinPDDulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline lacking Ca2+ and Mg2+PBSDulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline with Ca2+ and Mg2+sCD14soluble CD14.) an amphipathic molecule that forms micelles in aqueous buffers. Micelles of LPS bind poorly to leukocytes and provoke a response only at very high concentrations. The addition of plasma, however, dramatically enhances the ability of LPS to both bind to cells and evoke responses(1Wright S.D. J. Immunol. 1995; 155: 6-8PubMed Google Scholar, 2Ulevitch R.J. Tobias P.S. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 1995; 13: 437-457Crossref PubMed Scopus (1309) Google Scholar). Two plasma proteins, LPS binding protein (LBP) and soluble CD14 (sCD14) have been shown to play a large role in transporting LPS and in mediating responses of cells(3Wright S.D. Ramos R.A. Tobias P.S. Ulevitch R.J. Mathison J.C. Science. 1990; 249: 1431-1433Crossref PubMed Scopus (3322) Google Scholar, 4Shumann R.R. Leong S.R. Flaggs G.W. Gray P.W. Wright S.D. Mathison J.C. Tobias P.S. Ulevitch R.J. Science. 1990; 264: 1429-1431Crossref Scopus (1359) Google Scholar). LBP is a lipid transfer protein that catalyzes transfer of LPS monomers from micelles to a binding site on sCD14(5Hailman E. Lichenstein H.S. Wurfel M.M. Miller D.S. Johnson D.A. Kelley M. Busse L.A. Zukowski M.M. Wright S.D. J. Exp. Med. 1994; 179: 269-277Crossref PubMed Scopus (606) Google Scholar), from LPS-sCD14 complexes to HDL particles (6Wurfel M.M. Hailman E. Wright S.D. J. Exp. Med. 1995; 181: 1743-1754Crossref PubMed Scopus (227) Google Scholar) and from LPS micelle to HDL particle(7Wurfel M.M. Kunitake S.T. Lichenstein H.S. Kane J.P. Wright S.D. J. Exp. Med. 1994; 180: 1025-1035Crossref PubMed Scopus (362) Google Scholar). By transferring LPS first to sCD14 and from LPS•sCD14 to HDL, LBP effects transport of LPS(6Wurfel M.M. Hailman E. Wright S.D. J. Exp. Med. 1995; 181: 1743-1754Crossref PubMed Scopus (227) Google Scholar). As a first step in obtaining the catalytic constants for the above three reactions, we have prepared a fluorescent derivative of LPS that exhibits a large spectral shift upon movement from a micelle to sCD14, and we have used this compound to measure the turnover number for the LBP-catalyzed binding of LPS to sCD14 as well as a Km for each reactant. Our studies suggest that the transfer reaction proceeds via an ordered ternary complex of LPS, LBP, and sCD14. lipopolysaccharide boron dipyrromethene difluoride BODIPY-labeled LPS LPS binding protein Dulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline lacking Ca2+ and Mg2+ Dulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline with Ca2+ and Mg2+ soluble CD14. LPS from Salmonella minnesota strain R595 (Re) and 3H-labeled-LPS from Escherichia coli K12 strain LCD25 (K12) were purchased from List Biologicals (Campbell, CA). Anti-CD14 monoclonal antibody 3C10 (8Van Voorhis W.C. Steinman R.M. Hair L.S. Luban J. Witmer M.D. Koide S. Cohn Z.A. J. Exp. Med. 1983; 158: 126-145Crossref PubMed Scopus (133) Google Scholar) was purified from ascites fluid by chromatography on Protein G-Sepharose. Polyclonal anti-recombinant LBP was as described(7Wurfel M.M. Kunitake S.T. Lichenstein H.S. Kane J.P. Wright S.D. J. Exp. Med. 1994; 180: 1025-1035Crossref PubMed Scopus (362) Google Scholar). Rabbit IgG was purified from rabbit serum by chromatography on Protein G-Sepharose. sCD14 and mutant sCD14 in which residues 57-64 are deleted were prepared as described (9Juan T.S. Hailman E. Kelley M.J. Busse L.A. Davy E. Empig C.J. Narhi L.O. Wright S.D. Lichenstein H.S. J. Biol. Chem. 1995; 270: 5219-5224Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (103) Google Scholar). ReLPS was labeled using the BODIPY® FL labeling kit from Molecular Probes, Inc. (Eugene, OR) according to the manufacturer's suggested procedure. Briefly, LPS was suspended in 0.5 M sodium bicarbonate, pH 9.0, and incubated in labeling reagent for 30 min at room temperature with frequent sonication. Labeled LPS was promptly separated from unreacted BODIPY by gel filtration on a NAP 25 column (Pharmacia Biotech Inc.). Preliminary experiments in which trace 3H LPS was added to the derivatization showed that >95% of the added LPS was recovered. The derivatized LPS retained the ability to stimulate PMN in an LBP-dependent fashion (not shown). The BODIPY concentration in the derivatized products was determined by measurement of optical density at 503 nm, assuming an extinction coefficient of 74,000 cm-1M-1, and labeling stoichiometry was found to be approximately 1 LPS:0.2 BODIPY. All of the BODIPY appeared covalently attached to the LPS, because chromatography on Mono Q and reversed phase columns showed a single peak of fluorescence that eluted precisely with the LPS (not shown). We found in addition that the fluorescence of BODIPY-LPS increased about 50-fold upon addition of detergent (see Fig. 1), while free BODIPY showed no changes in fluorescence upon addition of SDS (not shown). This observation further supports the conclusion that BODIPY is covalently linked to micellar LPS. The excitation spectrum of BODIPY-LPS with or without 2% SDS was measured with an SLM-SPF500c spectrofluorimeter (SLM Instruments, Urbana, IL), and maximum excitation was observed at 485 nm. The emission spectrum was recorded with this excitation wavelength. To measure time-dependent changes in fluorescence that occur upon binding of BODIPY-LPS to sCD14, BODIPY-LPS, LBP, sCD14, and antibodies were diluted in PD (Dulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline lacking Ca2+ and Mg2+) (BioWhittaker, Inc., Walkersville, MD) and quickly mixed in a submicrocuvette (Starna Cells Inc., Atascadero, CA). In selected studies, the PD was replaced with PBS (Dulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline with 0.9 mM Ca2+ and 0.5 mM Mg2+). Fluorescence emission at 518 nm was digitally recorded over time with excitation at 485 nm. For measurement of the rate of BODIPY-LPS transfer, only the first 20-s period was used. In this time, less than 2% of complete transfer had occurred, insuring that an initial rate was observed, and linear regression yielded R2> 0.99, confirming linearity of the data. Fluorescence intensity was converted to molecules of LPS transferred using a BODIPY-LPS/SDS standard curve relating fluorescence to the concentration of BODIPY-LPS. These standards were prepared daily, and the diluent contained 2% SDS to allow maximal fluorescence. Since the fluorescence of the BODIPY-LPS•sCD14 complex was only 0.41 times as great as BODIPY-LPS in SDS (see below), the standard curve was calibrated accordingly. To obtain a preparation of BODIPY-LPS•sCD14 complexes that contained no free BODIPY-LPS, 16.7 nM LBP, 66 nM BODIPY-LPS, and 1 mg/ml human serum albumin were mixed in PD with or without 910 nM sCD14 (a 15-fold molar excess) and incubated at room temperature for 10 min. Any remaining BODIPY-LPS micelles were then removed by ultrafiltration with a Microcon 100 centrifuge filter (Amicon Corp, Beverly, MA). BODIPY-LPS•sCD14 complexes appear in the ultrafiltrate, while LPS micelles and LBP are retained(6Wurfel M.M. Hailman E. Wright S.D. J. Exp. Med. 1995; 181: 1743-1754Crossref PubMed Scopus (227) Google Scholar). The fluorescence of the filtrate was then measured with or without 2% SDS. The initial rate of LPS transfer was analyzed with the Lineweaver-Burk linear transform. Least squares linear curve fitting was done with the Excel spreadsheet program (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA). BODIPY is an efficient, photostable fluorescent probe whose emission spectrum depends on the local concentration of fluorophore. For example, vesicles containing 50 mol % of BODIPY-ceramide have an emission maximum at 620 nm, but dilution of the BODIPY-ceramide to 2 mol % with phosphatidylcholine shifts the emission maximum to ~515 nm. The ratio of fluorescence intensity at 515-620 nm changes from 0.01 to 10 upon dilution in this way(10Pagano R.E. Martin O.C. Kang H.C. Haugland R.P. J. Cell Biol. 1991; 113: 1267-1297Crossref PubMed Scopus (394) Google Scholar). The emission spectrum of BODIPY-LPS in PD (Fig. 1A) showed a broad peak at 620 nm, indicative of a high local concentration of fluorophore. This observation indicates that the BODIPY in our preparations is aggregated, most likely because it is coupled to LPS, and the BODIPY-LPS exists in micelles or aggregates. Assuming that BODIPY-LPS behaves similarly to BODIPY-ceramide, the ratio of fluorescence intensity at 620 and 515 nm suggests that our BODIPY-LPS preparation contained ~20 mol % BODIPY. This estimate is consistent with our measurement of 0.2 mol of BODIPY/mol of LPS (see “Materials and Methods”). Dissolution of BODIPY-LPS micelles with SDS led to a pronounced change in the emission spectrum with a strong maximum at 518 nm (Fig. 1B). This observation further confirms the attachment of BODIPY to LPS and indicates that fluorescent properties report the aggregation state of BODIPY-LPS. Since the emission at 518 nm rises up to 50-fold upon disaggregation of BODIPY-LPS, we have used fluorescence intensity at this wavelength as a measure of disaggregation. LBP is known to bind immobilized LPS and stably coat the surface of LPS-coated plastic plates(11Tobias P.S. Soldau K. Ulevitch R. J. Biol. Chem. 1989; 264: 10867-10871Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar, 12Gazzano-Santoro H. Meszaros K. Birr C. Carroll S.F. Theofan G. Horwitz A.H. Lim E.D. Aberle S. Kasler H. Parent J.B. Infect. Immun. 1994; 62: 1185-1191Crossref PubMed Google Scholar), LPS-coated erythrocytes or whole Gram-negative bacteria(13Wright S.D. Tobias P.S. Ulevitch R.J. Ramos R.A. J. Exp. Med. 1989; 170 (1241): 1241Crossref Scopus (268) Google Scholar). To determine if binding of LBP changes the aggregation state of LPS in solution, BODIPY-LPS aggregates were mixed with increasing concentrations of LBP, and fluorescence emission at 518 nm was measured. LBP caused a reproducible, dose-dependent increase in fluorescence, but even a molar excess of LBP caused fluorescence to rise only 2-fold (Fig. 2). This slight change in fluorescence may be caused by the interaction of LBP with BODIPY-LPS that remains aggregated in micelles. This hypothesis is consistent with the observation that fluorescence enhancement is 75% of maximal upon addition of only 0.2 mol of LBP/mol of LPS. It is also consistent with our finding that radioactive LPS could not be found associated with monomeric LBP in native gels (5Hailman E. Lichenstein H.S. Wurfel M.M. Miller D.S. Johnson D.A. Kelley M. Busse L.A. Zukowski M.M. Wright S.D. J. Exp. Med. 1994; 179: 269-277Crossref PubMed Scopus (606) Google Scholar) and with recent work showing that LBP and LPS may form very large complexes in solution(14Gegner J.A. Ulevitch R.J. Tobias P.S J. Biol. Chem. 1995; 270: 5320-5325Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (235) Google Scholar, 15Tobias P.S. Soldau K. Gegner J.A. Mintz D. Ulevitch R.J. J. Biol. Chem. 1995; 270: 10482-10488Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (269) Google Scholar). The fluorescence increase caused by LBP might also result from a small fraction of the BODIPY-LPS becoming associated with soluble, monomeric LBP, and our data cannot determine whether LBP exerts its effects on fluorescence by binding to BODIPY-LPS micelles or by disassociating a small proportion of BODIPY-LPS from micelles. In either case, it is clear that LBP does not cause substantial disaggregation of LPS. We have previously shown that sCD14 binds one to two molecules of LPS and that LPS•sCD14 complexes exist as monomers(5Hailman E. Lichenstein H.S. Wurfel M.M. Miller D.S. Johnson D.A. Kelley M. Busse L.A. Zukowski M.M. Wright S.D. J. Exp. Med. 1994; 179: 269-277Crossref PubMed Scopus (606) Google Scholar). The fluorescence intensity of BODIPY-LPS should thus rise upon binding to sCD14. Indeed, the addition of sCD14 to BODIPY-LPS, in the presence of low amounts of LBP to facilitate binding (see below), caused a strong rise in fluorescence (Fig. 3, line A), which reached a plateau at about 10 min. The maximal fluorescence reached at plateau was dependent on the concentration of sCD14. Substoichiometric amounts of sCD14 caused a concentration-dependent, linear increase in fluorescence that reached a maximum at approximately 1 CD14 added per BODIPY-LPS molecule (Fig. 4). This finding indicates that BODIPY-LPS binds sCD14 and suggests that the stoichiometry of this interaction is approximately one LPS per sCD14, consistent with our previous findings(5Hailman E. Lichenstein H.S. Wurfel M.M. Miller D.S. Johnson D.A. Kelley M. Busse L.A. Zukowski M.M. Wright S.D. J. Exp. Med. 1994; 179: 269-277Crossref PubMed Scopus (606) Google Scholar). Parallel measurements, however, showed that addition of SDS to BODIPY-LPS caused a fluorescence increase even greater than that observed with saturating amounts of sCD14. Two phenomena, individually or in combination, could contribute to this observation: the fluorescence increase upon binding sCD14 could be less than that caused by dissolution in SDS micelles, or a portion of BODIPY-LPS may have failed to bind to sCD14 and remained as aggregates. Experiments described below show that the fluorescence efficiency of BODIPY-LPS•sCD14 complexes is less than that of BODIPY-LPS in SDS micelles.Figure 4:Fluorescence at plateau of BODIPY-LPS depends on the concentration of sCD14. 330 nM BODIPY-LPS, 16.7 nM LBP, and increasing concentrations of sCD14 were mixed and incubated at room temperature for 4 min prior to measuring fluorescence emmision at 518 nm (open square, right axis). Fluorescence measurements for BODIPY-LPS and sCD14 mixtures without LBP are shown with open circles, right axis. The concentration of BODIPY-LPS in BODIPY-LPS/sCD14 complexes was calculated from the fluorescence measurement as described under “Materials and Methods” and is shown on the left axis. The fluorescence of 330 nM BODIPY-LPS rose to 1.3 with 2% SDS. The data are the mean of two fluorescence measurements ± S.D. of a representative experiment repeated three times.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT) To obtain a preparation of BODIPY-LPS•/complexes that did not contain any free BODIPY-LPS micelles, 200 ng/ml BODIPY-LPS was incubated with 1 μg/ml LBP and a 15-fold molar excess of sCD14 (50 μg/ml) for longer than 300 s to achieve maximal transfer. In the presence of sCD14 and LBP, the fluorescence intensity at 518 nm rose 10.5-fold (from 0.031 to 0.322). The addition of SDS to this mixture caused the fluorescence to rise a further 2-fold, confirming that sCD14 had not fully increased the fluorescence efficiency. The mixture was then passed through an ultrafiltration membrane with a 100-kDa size cutoff (see “Materials and Methods”). Previous studies showed that both sCD14 and LPS•sCD14 complexes pass through the membrane, but neither LPS micelles alone nor LBP pass this filter(6Wurfel M.M. Hailman E. Wright S.D. J. Exp. Med. 1995; 181: 1743-1754Crossref PubMed Scopus (227) Google Scholar). We verified that less than 2.5% of BODIPY-LPS alone passed through the filter (not shown). The ultrafiltrate showed strong fluorescence at 518 nm with an emission spectrum identical to that of BODIPY-LPS in SDS (not shown). This observation confirms that BODIPY-LPS•sCD14 complexes are formed and that they show the fluorescence properties of disaggregated fluorophore. The addition of SDS directly to the ultrafiltered complexes caused the fluorescence to rise. After correction for background, the fluorescence of BODIPY-LPS•sCD14 complexes was 41.3 ± 2.3% (n = 3) of BODIPY-LPS in 2% SDS. This observation indicates that BODIPY-LPS in complex with sCD14 shows lower fluorescence efficiency than BODIPY-LPS in SDS, and we have used this finding to calculate the concentration of BODIPY-LPS•sCD14 complexes. On the day of each experiment, we measured the fluorescence of BODIPY-LPS alone and in the presence of 2% SDS. A curve relating fluorescence to BODIPY-LPS•sCD14 concentration was then plotted with 0% as the fluorescence value of BODIPY-LPS alone and 100% as the value of BODIPY-LPS measured in SDS × 0.41. We have used this method to determine the amount of BODIPY-LPS bound to sCD14 in the presence of excess BODIPY-LPS (Fig. 4, left y axis). At several sCD14 concentrations, a constant proportion of 1 BODIPY-LPS appeared bound per sCD14. We have previously shown by gel electrophoresis that LBP facilitates the movement of LPS from micelles to sCD14 and that each LBP molecule may transfer hundreds of LPS molecules to hundreds of sCD14 molecules(5Hailman E. Lichenstein H.S. Wurfel M.M. Miller D.S. Johnson D.A. Kelley M. Busse L.A. Zukowski M.M. Wright S.D. J. Exp. Med. 1994; 179: 269-277Crossref PubMed Scopus (606) Google Scholar). To measure the initial rate of this transfer, we have measured the rise in fluorescence of BODIPY-LPS upon binding to sCD14. The fluorescence of BODIPY-LPS alone was stable for over 15 min of continuous illumination in a cuvette (data not shown). The addition of a 7-fold molar excess of sCD14 alone did not cause a measurable change in fluorescence over 1000 s (Fig. 3, line C), indicating that spontaneous movement of BODIPY-LPS to sCD14 was negligible in this interval. The addition of 0.05 mol of LBP/mol of BODIPY-LPS similarly had a negligible effect on the fluorescence of the BODIPY-LPS (Fig. 3, line B). However, the addition of LBP and sCD14 together caused a rapid rise in fluorescence with first order kinetics, and we calculate that over 95% of the BODIPY-LPS was bound to sCD14 at the plateau (Fig. 3, line A). Since the LBP was present at 20-fold substoichiometric levels, its function appears to be catalytic. To verify that the movement of BODIPY-LPS into sCD14 was caused by LBP rather than a contaminant or buffer constituent, anti-LBP IgG was added to the reaction. Rabbit IgG had little effect on movement of BODIPY-LPS to sCD14, but anti-LBP completely blocked transfer (Fig. 5). The inhibitory effect of antibody could be seen at an antibody concentration as low as 1 μg/ml. To verify that the LPS binding site on sCD14 is required for the LBP-catalyzed rise in fluorescence, we employed a mutant sCD14 in which residues 57-64 of the LPS binding site are deleted (sCD14Δ57-64). This mutant sCD14 shows strongly decreased ability to bind LPS in gel assays or to mediate cellular responses to LPS(9Juan T.S. Hailman E. Kelley M.J. Busse L.A. Davy E. Empig C.J. Narhi L.O. Wright S.D. Lichenstein H.S. J. Biol. Chem. 1995; 270: 5219-5224Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (103) Google Scholar), and we found that sCD14Δ57-64 showed a strongly decreased ability to enhance fluorescence of BODIPY-LPS under the same experimental conditions (Fig. 6).Figure 6:sCD14Δ57-64 fails to enhance the fluorescence of BODIPY-LPS. 13.2 nM BODIPY-LPS and 0.67 nM LBP were mixed with either 5 μg/ml full-length sCD14 (line A) or sCD14Δ57-64(line B), and fluorescence at 518 nm was recorded over time at 30°C. Control mixtures were as shown on the graph. The figure is representative of two separate experiments.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT) In the above studies, sCD14 was present in stoichiometric excess of LBP. In blood, however, approximately equal levels of LBP and sCD14 are present, and Tobias et al.(15Tobias P.S. Soldau K. Gegner J.A. Mintz D. Ulevitch R.J. J. Biol. Chem. 1995; 270: 10482-10488Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (269) Google Scholar) have suggested that under these conditions the LPS will remain with LBP and will not be transferred to sCD14. We tested this hypothesis by measuring the interaction of BODIPY-LPS with equimolar LBP and sCD14 (Fig. 7). LBP alone, at a concentration stoichiometric to LPS (line B), caused some enhancement of the fluorescence of BODIPY-LPS. When stoichiometric sCD14 was added to the mixture of LBP and BODIPY-LPS the fluorescence increased very rapidly (line D), suggesting rapid transfer to sCD14. The level of fluorescence obtained was similar to that seen with substoichiometric LBP (line E). This result suggests that BODIPY-LPS is substantially transferred to sCD14 even in the presence of stoichiometric levels of LBP. The initial rate for transfer of BODIPY-LPS to sCD14 was obtained over a range of concentrations of both sCD14 and BODIPY-LPS (Fig. 8). The transfer reaction was first order with respect to concentration of both sCD14 and BODIPY-LPS (not shown). Measurement performed in buffer PD (without added divalents) yielded a Km (apparent) for LPS of 88.8 ± 11 ng/ml (n = 2) with 1 μg/ml sCD14 and 133.8 ± 1.6 ng/ml (n = 2) with 5 μg/ml sCD14. The Km (apparent) for sCD14 was 1.7 ± 0.5 μg/ml (n = 2) with 30 ng/ml LPS and 1.5 ± 0.8 μg/ml (n = 2) with 60 ng/ml LPS. To determine if these values are sensitive to the concentration of divalent cations, additional measurements were made in PBS (a buffer with physiologic concentration of Ca2+ and Mg2+). This addition caused very slight changes; we observed a Km (apparent) for LPS of 91.1 ± 13.0 ng/ml (n = 2) with 1 μg/ml sCD14 and 165.0 ± 42 ng/ml (n = 2) with 5 μg/ml sCD14. The Km (apparent) for CD14 was 0.91 ± 0.5 (n = 2) with 30 ng/ml LPS and 1.58 ± 1.47 (n = 2) with 60 ng/ml LPS. The turnover number for LBP was 59.3 ± 16 mol of LPS min-1 LBP-1 with 5 μg/ml sCD14, and an intercept replot of Fig. 8A (not shown) yielded an extrapolated maximum turnover number of 149 ± 22 mol of LPS min-1 LBP-1. Here we describe a sensitive method for measuring the movement of labeled LPS from micelles to sCD14. The method depends on a spectral shift in a fluorophore upon dilution and is similar in principal to a method recently described by Tobias et al.(15Tobias P.S. Soldau K. Gegner J.A. Mintz D. Ulevitch R.J. J. Biol. Chem. 1995; 270: 10482-10488Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (269) Google Scholar). Dilution of our BODIPY-LPS yields up to a 50-fold rise in fluorescence. Like Tobias et al., we confirm the finding of Hailman et al.(5Hailman E. Lichenstein H.S. Wurfel M.M. Miller D.S. Johnson D.A. Kelley M. Busse L.A. Zukowski M.M. Wright S.D. J. Exp. Med. 1994; 179: 269-277Crossref PubMed Scopus (606) Google Scholar) that LBP catalyzes transfer of LPS from micelles to sCD14 and that sCD14 binds approximately one LPS molecule. We further show that the transfer exhibits first order kinetics, and we have defined the catalytic constants for the transfer reaction. We find that the Km for sCD14 is 1-2 μg/ml, values within the range of concentrations of sCD14 in human plasma. The Km for LPS (~100 ng/ml), on the other hand, is substantially higher than the LPS levels normally observed in sepsis, and LBP may thus normally operate with levels of this substrate well below its Km. With saturating levels of LPS and sCD14, the turnover number for LBP is approximately 150 mol of LPS min-1 LBP-1. As with bisubstrate enzymes(16Walsh C. Enzymatic Reaction Mechanism. W. H. Freeman and Co., New York1979: 216-224Google Scholar), two general models may explain the interaction of the catalyst, LBP, with the substrates, sCD14 and LPS micelles. In a “ping pong” or “binary complex” model, LBP interacts with an LPS micelle in a first bimolecular reaction. LBP then disassociates from the micelle with one molecule of LPS and binds to sCD14 in a second bimolecular reaction (Fig. 9A). Alternatively, in a “ternary complex” model, LBP interacts simultaneously with both an LPS micelle and sCD14 during transfer of an LPS monomer to the sCD14 (Fig. 9B). We have drawn this as an ordered ternary complex reaction with LBP binding to LPS micelles before sCD14 since LBP is known to bind LPS aggregates without sCD14(11Tobias P.S. Soldau K. Ulevitch R. J. Biol. Chem. 1989; 264: 10867-10871Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar, 12Gazzano-Santoro H. Meszaros K. Birr C. Carroll S.F. Theofan G. Horwitz A.H. Lim E.D. Aberle S. Kasler H. Parent J.B. Infect. Immun. 1994; 62: 1185-1191Crossref PubMed Google Scholar), but sCD14 does not bind LBP without LPS(13Wright S.D. Tobias P.S. Ulevitch R.J. Ramos R.A. J. Exp. Med. 1989; 170 (1241): 1241Crossref Scopus (268) Google Scholar). Several lines of evidence indicate that LBP utilizes principally the ternary complex intermediate to transfer LPS to sCD14. 1) The binary complex model predicts parallel lines in the double reciprocal plots of Fig. 8(16Walsh C. Enzymatic Reaction Mechanism. W. H. Freeman and Co., New York1979: 216-224Google Scholar). These plots, however, clearly intersect, suggesting a ternary complex mechanism. A secondary plot of Fig. 8A, shown in the inset, confirms a monotonic change in slope with CD14 concentration. 2) A ternary complex of aggregated LPS, LBP, and sCD14 clearly does form. Erythrocytes coated with LPS•LBP complexes bind to CD14 on the surface of macrophages (13Wright S.D. Tobias P.S. Ulevitch R.J. Ramos R.A. J. Exp. Med. 1989; 170 (1241): 1241Crossref Scopus (268) Google Scholar), complexes of LBP and LPS are removed from plasma upon chromatography on immobilized CD14(17Yu B. Wright S.D. J. Inflam. 1995; 45: 115-125PubMed Google Scholar), and complexes of labeled LBP and LPS bind to CD14-bearing cells in a CD14-dependent manner(14Gegner J.A. Ulevitch R.J. Tobias P.S J. Biol. Chem. 1995; 270: 5320-5325Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (235) Google Scholar, 18Kirkland T.N. Finley F. Leturcq D. Moriarty A. Lee J.D. Ulevitch R.J. Tobias P.S. J. Biol. Chem. 1993; 268: 24818-24823Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar). 3) The binary complex model requires that LBP disassociate from LPS micelles to yield an LBP•LPS complex that shuttles LPS through the aqueous medium. This intermediate, however, has not been demonstrated under physiologic conditions. We have failed to observe monomeric LPS•LBP complexes in native gels of mixtures of LPS and LBP(5Hailman E. Lichenstein H.S. Wurfel M.M. Miller D.S. Johnson D.A. Kelley M. Busse L.A. Zukowski M.M. Wright S.D. J. Exp. Med. 1994; 179: 269-277Crossref PubMed Scopus (606) Google Scholar). Moreover, LBP binds with high affinity to LPS-coated surfaces(11Tobias P.S. Soldau K. Ulevitch R. J. Biol. Chem. 1989; 264: 10867-10871Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar, 12Gazzano-Santoro H. Meszaros K. Birr C. Carroll S.F. Theofan G. Horwitz A.H. Lim E.D. Aberle S. Kasler H. Parent J.B. Infect. Immun. 1994; 62: 1185-1191Crossref PubMed Google Scholar), suggesting that disassociation is energetically unfavorable. The ternary complex model obviates the need for this unfavorable reaction. While Tobias et al.(15Tobias P.S. Soldau K. Gegner J.A. Mintz D. Ulevitch R.J. J. Biol. Chem. 1995; 270: 10482-10488Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (269) Google Scholar) have observed monomeric LBP complexed with one to two LPS molecules under certain conditions, these studies were done in the presence of EDTA, an agent known to destabilize LPS. We have observed that EDTA caused a marked enhancement of the fluorescence of LBP•BODIPY-LPS complexes (not shown), suggesting that it could promote disaggregation. Our studies were done in the absence of EDTA to avoid that artificial disaggregation. Additional studies documented that the addition of physiologic concentration Ca2+ and Mg2+ did not significantly affect reaction kinetics. 4) Shuttling of LPS in a complex with LBP is required for the binary complex mechanism but is inconsistent with other data on the action of LBP. LBP is known to mediate the three transfer reactions in Fig. 10. If LPS•LBP complexes were the intermediate in these reactions, the addition of sCD14 would not affect the rate of transfer of LPS to HDL; sCD14 could not generate LPS•LBP complexes in excess of the LPS•LBP complexes needed to make LPS•sCD14. We have observed, however, that the addition of sCD14 dramatically enhances movement of LPS from micelles to HDL(6Wurfel M.M. Hailman E. Wright S.D. J. Exp. Med. 1995; 181: 1743-1754Crossref PubMed Scopus (227) Google Scholar). This finding is inconsistent with the binary complex model of LBP action but is consistent with a model in which transfer of LPS monomers to sCD14 is catalyzed through specific interactions of LBP with both the LPS micelles and sCD14. We wish to emphasize that our data do not rule out the possibility of some LPS being shuttled by LBP in a binary complex reaction. They merely suggest that a ternary complex mechanism is likely to be favored under physiological conditions.Figure 10:Three transfer reactions facilitated by LBP. LBP catalyzes movement of LPS monomer from LPS aggregates to sCD14(5Hailman E. Lichenstein H.S. Wurfel M.M. Miller D.S. Johnson D.A. Kelley M. Busse L.A. Zukowski M.M. Wright S.D. J. Exp. Med. 1994; 179: 269-277Crossref PubMed Scopus (606) Google Scholar), from LPS aggregates to HDL particles(7Wurfel M.M. Kunitake S.T. Lichenstein H.S. Kane J.P. Wright S.D. J. Exp. Med. 1994; 180: 1025-1035Crossref PubMed Scopus (362) Google Scholar), and from LPS•sCD14 complexes to HDL particles(6Wurfel M.M. Hailman E. Wright S.D. J. Exp. Med. 1995; 181: 1743-1754Crossref PubMed Scopus (227) Google Scholar).View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT) Our conclusion that LBP transfers LPS via an ordered, ternary complex reaction model differs from that of Tobias et al.(15Tobias P.S. Soldau K. Gegner J.A. Mintz D. Ulevitch R.J. J. Biol. Chem. 1995; 270: 10482-10488Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (269) Google Scholar), who favor the binary reaction model of Fig. 9A. These authors did not address the possibility of the ternary complex reaction of Fig. 9B. They argued that, since LBP binds to LPS with high apparent affinity, transfer to sCD14 would be energetically unfavorable. Our results indicate that, even with equimolar LBP and sCD14, transfer of LPS to sCD14 is favored (Fig. 7). How could LBP transfer LPS to sCD14 if its affinity for LPS is greater than that of CD14? We suggest that the high affinity of LBP is for the LPS aggregate, not the LPS monomer. A key feature of the ternary complex reaction model is that LBP may transfer an LPS monomer from an aggregate without the energetically unfavorable step of disassociating from the aggregate. One LBP molecule may thus transfer successive LPS monomers from a single aggregate (see curved arrow in Fig. 9B). This formulation is consistent with all known observations on the action of LBP. While our results strongly suggest an ordered ternary complex mechanism for LBP-mediated transfer of LPS from micelles to sCD14, they do not describe the reaction mechanism for the other two reactions catalyzed by LBP: transfer of LPS from micelles to HDL particles and transfer of LPS monomers from sCD14 to HDL particles (see Fig. 10). Experiments to describe these reactions are currently under way. We gratefully acknowledge the gift of recombinant LBP and sCD14 from Drs H. Lichenstein and T. S-C. Juan. We want to thank Drs E. Hailman, T. Park, and M. M. Wurfel for help and suggestions and Dr. P. A. Detmers for critical reading of the manuscript." @default.
• W1488995655 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1488995655 creator A5076210539 @default.
• W1488995655 creator A5087573544 @default.
• W1488995655 date "1996-02-01" @default.
• W1488995655 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W1488995655 title "Catalytic Properties of Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) Binding Protein" @default.
• W1488995655 cites W1499532983 @default.
• W1488995655 cites W1546909952 @default.
• W1488995655 cites W1582984670 @default.
• W1488995655 cites W2006515599 @default.
• W1488995655 cites W2025986890 @default.
• W1488995655 cites W2029157767 @default.
• W1488995655 cites W2033813366 @default.
• W1488995655 cites W2036174328 @default.
• W1488995655 cites W2064626913 @default.
• W1488995655 cites W2067294390 @default.
• W1488995655 cites W2085952814 @default.
• W1488995655 cites W2097660403 @default.
• W1488995655 cites W2106161615 @default.
• W1488995655 cites W2113828544 @default.
• W1488995655 cites W2120050743 @default.
• W1488995655 cites W2169228758 @default.
• W1488995655 doi "https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.271.8.4100" @default.
• W1488995655 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8626747" @default.
• W1488995655 hasPublicationYear "1996" @default.
• W1488995655 type Work @default.
• W1488995655 sameAs 1488995655 @default.
• W1488995655 citedByCount "193" @default.
• W1488995655 countsByYear W14889956552012 @default.
• W1488995655 countsByYear W14889956552013 @default.
• W1488995655 countsByYear W14889956552014 @default.
• W1488995655 countsByYear W14889956552015 @default.
• W1488995655 countsByYear W14889956552016 @default.
• W1488995655 countsByYear W14889956552017 @default.
• W1488995655 countsByYear W14889956552018 @default.
• W1488995655 countsByYear W14889956552019 @default.
• W1488995655 countsByYear W14889956552020 @default.
• W1488995655 countsByYear W14889956552021 @default.
• W1488995655 countsByYear W14889956552022 @default.
• W1488995655 countsByYear W14889956552023 @default.
• W1488995655 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1488995655 hasAuthorship W1488995655A5076210539 @default.
• W1488995655 hasAuthorship W1488995655A5087573544 @default.
• W1488995655 hasBestOaLocation W14889956551 @default.
• W1488995655 hasConcept C12554922 @default.
• W1488995655 hasConcept C161790260 @default.
• W1488995655 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W1488995655 hasConcept C203014093 @default.
• W1488995655 hasConcept C2778754761 @default.
• W1488995655 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W1488995655 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1488995655 hasConcept C95444343 @default.
• W1488995655 hasConceptScore W1488995655C12554922 @default.
• W1488995655 hasConceptScore W1488995655C161790260 @default.
• W1488995655 hasConceptScore W1488995655C185592680 @default.
• W1488995655 hasConceptScore W1488995655C203014093 @default.
• W1488995655 hasConceptScore W1488995655C2778754761 @default.
• W1488995655 hasConceptScore W1488995655C55493867 @default.
• W1488995655 hasConceptScore W1488995655C86803240 @default.
• W1488995655 hasConceptScore W1488995655C95444343 @default.
• W1488995655 hasIssue "8" @default.
• W1488995655 hasLocation W14889956551 @default.
• W1488995655 hasOpenAccess W1488995655 @default.
• W1488995655 hasPrimaryLocation W14889956551 @default.
• W1488995655 hasRelatedWork W1531601525 @default.
• W1488995655 hasRelatedWork W1819797088 @default.
• W1488995655 hasRelatedWork W1856707908 @default.
• W1488995655 hasRelatedWork W2014426957 @default.
• W1488995655 hasRelatedWork W2028525624 @default.
• W1488995655 hasRelatedWork W2044342685 @default.
• W1488995655 hasRelatedWork W2106934132 @default.
• W1488995655 hasRelatedWork W2409174259 @default.
• W1488995655 hasRelatedWork W2411590309 @default.
• W1488995655 hasRelatedWork W3086784005 @default.
• W1488995655 hasVolume "271" @default.
• W1488995655 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1488995655 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1488995655 magId "1488995655" @default.
• W1488995655 workType "article" @default.