FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2013177319> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2013177319 endingPage "5056" @default.
• W2013177319 startingPage "5047" @default.
• W2013177319 abstract "Article1 October 2002free access Requirement of N-glycan on GPI-anchored proteins for efficient binding of aerolysin but not Clostridium septicum α-toxin Yeongjin Hong Yeongjin Hong Department of Immunoregulation, Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University, 3-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871 Japan Search for more papers by this author Kazuhito Ohishi Kazuhito Ohishi Department of Immunoregulation, Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University, 3-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871 Japan Search for more papers by this author Norimitsu Inoue Norimitsu Inoue Present address: Department of Molecular Genetics, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan Search for more papers by this author Ji Young Kang Ji Young Kang Department of Immunoregulation, Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University, 3-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871 Japan Search for more papers by this author Hiroaki Shime Hiroaki Shime Department of Bacterial Toxinology, Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University, 3-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871 Japan Search for more papers by this author Yasuhiko Horiguchi Yasuhiko Horiguchi Department of Bacterial Toxinology, Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University, 3-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871 Japan Search for more papers by this author F.Gisou van der Goot F.Gisou van der Goot Department of Genetics and Microbiology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland Search for more papers by this author Nakaba Sugimoto Nakaba Sugimoto Division of Advanced Medical Bacteriology, Department of Molecular and Applied Medicine, Medical School of Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan Search for more papers by this author Taroh Kinoshita Corresponding Author Taroh Kinoshita Department of Immunoregulation, Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University, 3-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871 Japan Search for more papers by this author Yeongjin Hong Yeongjin Hong Department of Immunoregulation, Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University, 3-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871 Japan Search for more papers by this author Kazuhito Ohishi Kazuhito Ohishi Department of Immunoregulation, Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University, 3-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871 Japan Search for more papers by this author Norimitsu Inoue Norimitsu Inoue Present address: Department of Molecular Genetics, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan Search for more papers by this author Ji Young Kang Ji Young Kang Department of Immunoregulation, Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University, 3-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871 Japan Search for more papers by this author Hiroaki Shime Hiroaki Shime Department of Bacterial Toxinology, Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University, 3-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871 Japan Search for more papers by this author Yasuhiko Horiguchi Yasuhiko Horiguchi Department of Bacterial Toxinology, Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University, 3-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871 Japan Search for more papers by this author F.Gisou van der Goot F.Gisou van der Goot Department of Genetics and Microbiology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland Search for more papers by this author Nakaba Sugimoto Nakaba Sugimoto Division of Advanced Medical Bacteriology, Department of Molecular and Applied Medicine, Medical School of Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan Search for more papers by this author Taroh Kinoshita Corresponding Author Taroh Kinoshita Department of Immunoregulation, Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University, 3-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871 Japan Search for more papers by this author Author Information Yeongjin Hong1, Kazuhito Ohishi1, Norimitsu Inoue2, Ji Young Kang1, Hiroaki Shime3, Yasuhiko Horiguchi3, F.Gisou van der Goot4, Nakaba Sugimoto5 and Taroh Kinoshita 1 1Department of Immunoregulation, Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University, 3-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871 Japan 2Present address: Department of Molecular Genetics, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan 3Department of Bacterial Toxinology, Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University, 3-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871 Japan 4Department of Genetics and Microbiology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland 5Division of Advanced Medical Bacteriology, Department of Molecular and Applied Medicine, Medical School of Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] The EMBO Journal (2002)21:5047-5056https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/cdf508 PDFDownload PDF of article text and main figures. ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyWechatReddit Figures & Info Aerolysin of the Gram-negative bacterium Aeromonas hydrophila consists of small (SL) and large (LL) lobes. The α-toxin of Gram-positive Clostridium septicum has a single lobe homologous to LL. These toxins bind to glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI)-anchored proteins and generate pores in the cell's plasma membrane. We isolated CHO cells resistant to aerolysin, with the aim of obtaining GPI biosynthesis mutants. One mutant unexpectedly expressed GPI-anchored proteins, but nevertheless bound aerolysin poorly and was 10-fold less sensitive than wild-type cells. A cDNA of N-acetylglucosamine transferase I (GnTI) restored the binding of aerolysin to this mutant. Therefore, N-glycan is involved in the binding. Removal of mannoses by α-mannosidase II was important for the binding of aerolysin. In contrast, the α-toxin killed GnTI-deficient and wild-type CHO cells equally, indicating that its binding to GPI-anchored proteins is independent of N-glycan. Because SL bound to wild-type but not to GnTI-deficient cells, and because a hybrid toxin consisting of SL and the α-toxin killed wild-type cells 10-fold more efficiently than GnTI- deficient cells, SL with its binding site for N-glycan contributes to the high binding affinity of aerolysin. Introduction A wide variety of mammalian proteins are anchored to the cell surface via glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI) (McConville and Ferguson, 1993; Kinoshita et al., 1995). GPI biosynthesis is essential for embryogenesis and proper skin development in mice, as demonstrated by gene targeting (Tarutani et al., 1997). A deficiency of GPI causes paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, indicating a critical role for the GPI anchoring of proteins in the regulation of the complement system (Takeda et al., 1993). In contrast, GPI is not essential for growth of mammalian cells and many mutant cell lines defective in GPI biosynthesis have been established. Twenty genes involved in the biosynthetic pathway of GPI have been identified, mainly by means of complementation cloning using mutant cells (Kinoshita and Inoue, 2000). New mutants are required for cloning as yet missing genes and for reconstituting the pathway for full characterization of GPI biosynthesis. In addition to these physiological roles, GPI-anchored proteins act as receptors for bacterial cytolytic toxins, namely aerolysin (Diep et al., 1998b) and clostridial α-toxin (Gordon et al., 1999). The plant cytolytic toxin enterolobin (Fontes et al., 1997) may also bind to GPI-anchored proteins. Mutant cell lines defective in GPI biosynthesis (Nelson et al., 1997; Gordon et al., 1999) and affected cells from patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (Brodsky et al., 1999) are resistant to aerolysin. Aerolysin is the major virulence factor of the Gram-negative bacterium Aeromonas hydrophila, which causes gastroenteritis, deep wound infection and septicemia (Buckley, 1999). Aerolysin, secreted as a soluble inactive protoxin termed proaerolysin, binds to GPI-anchored proteins, such as Thy-1 (Nelson et al., 1997), contactin (Diep et al., 1998b) and erythrocyte aerolysin receptor (Cowell et al., 1997). A C-terminal peptide is then cleaved off by cell surface proteases, such as furin, and the toxin thus activated forms heptameric, insertion-competent channels, which in turn insert into the membrane and kill the cell (Abrami et al., 2000). The α-toxin secreted by the Gram-positive bacterium Clostridium septicum (Tweten and Sellman, 1999) also binds to GPI-anchored proteins and kills the cell in a similar way to aerolysin (Parker et al., 1996; Gordon et al., 1999). The two toxins share homologous protein sequences and characteristics, such as activation upon cleavage of a C-terminal peptide and the formation of oligomeric channels (Ballard et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 1997). A major difference between them is that aerolysin has a two-lobe structure, an N-terminal small lobe (SL) and a C-terminal large lobe (LL) (Parker et al., 1994), whereas the clostridial α-toxin has only a single, LL-like structure (Ballard et al., 1995). SL has homology to the S2 and S3 subunits of pertussis toxin of Bordetella pertussis, forming a family of domains, termed APT domains. APT domains have homology to carbohydrate recognition domains of C-type lectins (Rossjohn et al., 1997). Aerolysin bearing a mutation in SL has reduced receptor-binding ability (Rossjohn et al., 1997). A hybrid toxin (HT), consisting of SL of aerolysin linked to α-toxin, had much greater lytic activity than the α-toxin (Diep et al., 1999). Taken together, SL may have a carbohydrate-binding site that contributes to the binding of aerolysin to target cells. Although the GPI anchor is clearly the most important determinant of aerolysin binding (Diep et al., 1998b), it alone is not sufficient for the binding (Abrami et al., 2002). It is also known that aerolysin binds weakly to glyco phorin A (GPA), a heavily glycosylated erythrocyte membrane protein that is not GPI anchored. HT, but not the α-toxin, is also able to bind to GPA (Diep et al., 1999). Therefore, the SL domain may recognize a second determinant in addition to the GPI anchor. In order to obtain new GPI-deficient mutants from CHO cells, we used aerolysin as a tool. To our surprise, one of the aerolysin-resistant mutants expressed normal levels of GPI-anchored proteins. Here, we report that this mutant is defective in the processing of N-glycan, that aerolysin recognizes N-glycan on GPI-anchored proteins with SL and that the binding of α-toxin is independent of N-glycan. Results Derivation and classification of aerolysin-resistant mutant CHO cells Aiming to obtain new mutant cells defective in GPI biosynthesis, we selected aerolysin-resistant clones from chemically mutagenized CHO(wt) cells [see Materials and methods for CHO(wt) cells]. We obtained 22 clones resistant to 5 nM proaerolysin. They were classified into three groups based on profiles of CD59 and decay-accelerating factor (DAF) expression on the cell surface and of the accumulated GPI intermediates. Twelve of 22 clones belonging to the first group, termed GPI(−).O cells, expressed no CD59 and 10% of the normal level of DAF (Figure 1C). Upon metabolic labeling with [3H]mannose, they accumulated GPI intermediates H2–H6 (Figure 2, lane 1), suggesting a defect in the transfer of ethanolaminephosphate to the third mannose. Consistent with this, PIG-O cDNA (Hong et al., 2000) restored the expression of CD59 and DAF after transfection (data not shown). Figure 1.Different expressions of GPI-anchored proteins on three aerolysin-resistant mutant cells. Cells were stained for CD59 and DAF. (A) Control, wild-type CHO cells stained with isotype-matched non-relevant antibodies. (B) CHO(wt), wild-type CHO cells. (C) GPI(−).O, GPI-anchor-deficient CHO cells. (D) GPI(−).U, CHO cells defective in GPI transamidase. (E) GPI(+), GPI-anchor-sufficient, aerolysin-resistant CHO cells. Download figure Download PowerPoint Figure 2.Aerolysin-resistant GPI(+) cells are not defective in GPI biosynthesis. Lipids extracted from cells metabolically labeled with [3H]mannose were analyzed by TLC in a solvent consisting of CHCl3:MeOH:H2O = 10:10:3. Mannolipids termed according to Hirose et al. (1992) are indicated. Lane 1, mutant GPI(−).O; lane 2, mutant GPI(−).U; lane 3, mutant GPI(+); lane 4, wild-type CHO(wt) cells. Download figure Download PowerPoint Six clones belonging to the second group, termed GPI(−).U cells, expressed no CD59 and a very low level of DAF (Figure 1D). They represent a new group of mutants because the expressions of CD59 and DAF were not recovered by transfection of any cDNAs of known genes involved in the biosynthesis of and attachment to GPI (data not shown). They accumulated all GPI intermediates (Figure 2, lane 2) like mutant cells defective in GPI transamidase (Ohishi et al., 2000). Surprisingly, 4 of 22 clones belonging to the third group, termed GPI(+) cells, expressed CD59 and DAF at normal levels (Figure 1E) and had a normal profile of GPI intermediates (Figure 2, lane 3 versus 4). The CD59 and DAF on GPI(+) cells were as sensitive to phosphatidylinositol-specific phospholipase C as those on CHO(wt) cells (data not shown). Therefore, GPI(+) cells expressed normal levels of GPI-anchored proteins on the cell surface, but nevertheless were resistant to aerolysin, which utilizes GPI-anchored proteins as receptors. GPI(+) cells do not bind aerolysin We compared the resistance of three mutant cells to proaerolysin. Cells defective in the surface expression of GPI-anchored proteins, GPI(−).O and GPI(−).U, were not killed by 10 nM aerolysin, whereas 60% of GPI(+) and all CHO(wt) cells were killed. About 50% of CHO(wt) cells were killed at 1 nM, indicating that GPI(+) cells were ∼10 times more resistant than CHO(wt) cells (Figure 3A). The GPI-deficient CHO cells were 100–1000 times more resistant than CHO(wt) cells (data not shown). So, GPI(+) cells had intermediate resistance to aerolysin. Figure 3.The aerolysin resistance of GPI(+) cells was due to the inefficient binding of the toxin. (A) Viabilities of mutant CHO cells after treatments with increasing concentrations of aerolysin. Percent cell viability measured by MTT assay is shown as a function of the proaerolysin concentration. (B) Binding of fluorescent-tagged proaerolysin (FLAER) to mutant cells. Cells incubated with FLAER at various concentrations (shown on the right) were analyzed by flow cytometry. (a) CHO(wt); (b) GPI(+); (c) GPI(−).U cells. Download figure Download PowerPoint We then tested the binding of FLAER, an Alexa488-conjugated mutant proaerolysin that binds to the receptors but does not kill the cell (Brodsky et al., 2000). FLAER bound to CHO(wt) but not to GPI(−).O (data not shown) nor to GPI(−).U cells (Figure 3B, a and c), as expected. FLAER also did not bind to GPI(+) cells, even at 100 nM (Figure 3B, b). Therefore, despite a normal expression of GPI-anchored proteins, GPI(+) cells do not bind aerolysin efficiently. GPI(+) cells are defective in the maturation of N-glycan due to a defect in N-acetylglucosamine transferase I (GnTI) To clone the gene responsible for the decreased sensitivity of GPI(+) cells to aerolysin, we used FLAER as a staining tool in the expression cloning. We transfected a rat cDNA library into the GPI(+) cells, collected cells in which the binding of FLAER was restored, and recovered cDNAs from them. We obtained cDNA clones that restored binding of FLAER to GPI(+) cells (Figure 4A). They encoded GnTI, a glycosyltransferase involved in maturation of N-glycans (Kumar et al., 1990). Figure 4.GPI(+) cells are defective in GnTI. (A) GnTI cDNA restored binding of FLAER to GPI(+) cells. GPI(+) cells transfected with rat GnTI cDNA (solid line) or a mock vector (dotted line) were stained with 5 nM FLAER and analyzed by FACS. (B) Lec1 CHO cells, an authentic GnTI mutant, are defective in aerolysin binding, similar to GPI(+) mutant. Lec1 cells transiently transfected with GnTI cDNA (a and c) or a mock vector (b and d) were incubated with 10 μg/ml FITC–PHA-P (a and b) or 5 nM FLAER (c and d). Thin lines, untransfected Lec1 cells; bold lines, transfectants. Download figure Download PowerPoint Lec1 CHO cells are defective in GnTI and do not make complex-type N-glycan (Puthalakath et al., 1996). We transiently transfected Lec1 cells with GnTI or a mock vector. The cells transfected with the mock vector did not bind fluorescent-labeled phytohemagglutinin-P (PHA-P) due to a lack of complex-type N-glycan. The cells transfected with GnTI efficiently bound PHA-P, indicating restoration of the complex-type N-glycan (Figure 4B, a and b). The mock-transfected Lec1 cells did not bind FLAER, whereas the GnTI-transfected Lec1 cells did (Figure 4B, c and d). It is, therefore, indicated that efficient aerolysin binding requires GnTI-dependent maturation of N-glycan. We then tested N-glycan of GPI(+) cells. We immunoprecipitated CD59, which has one N-glycosylation site (Bodian et al., 1997), and analyzed it by western blotting (Figure 5A). CD59 was 2–3 kDa smaller in GPI(+) cells than in wild-type cells (lanes 1 and 2), and was not detected in GPI(−).U cells (lane 3), consistent with the FACS data shown in Figure 1. To confirm that the smaller size of CD59 in GPI(+) cells was due to immature N-glycan, we transfected an N-glycan-less (N43A) mutant of FLAG-tagged CD59 into CHO(wt) and GPI(+) cells. As expected, the N-glycan-less CD59 expressed in the two cells had a similar size (Figure 5B, lanes 3 and 4). Wild-type FLAG-tagged CD59 expressed in GPI(+) cells was 2–3 kDa smaller than the major form expressed in CHO(wt) cells (lanes 1 and 2). To eliminate the possibility that the smaller size of CD59 in GPI(+) cells was due to some unknown abnormality in the GPI-anchor structure, we used FLAG-tagged CD59-TM with the transmembrane domain of CD46 (Lublin et al., 1988) in place of the C-terminal GPI attachment signal. The FLAG-tagged CD59-TM expressed in GPI(+) cells was 2–3 kDa smaller than the major form in CHO(wt) cells (lanes 5 and 6). These results indicated clearly that GPI(+) cells are indeed defective in N-glycan maturation, like Lec1 cells, accounting for their resistance to aerolysin. Figure 5.GPI(+) cells are defective in maturation of N-glycan. (A) Expression of a smaller CD59 by GPI(+) mutant cells. CD59 immunoprecipitates from NP-40 extracts of wild-type CHO(wt) (lane 1), GPI(+) mutant (lane 2) and GPI(−).U mutant (lane 3) cells were analyzed by western blotting with anti-CD59 mAb. Size makers are shown on the left. (B) The smaller sized CD59 in GPI(+) cells was due to an abnormal N-glycan not GPI anchor. Left panel: wild-type CHO cells (lanes 1 and 3) and GPI(+) mutant CHO cells (lanes 2 and 4) were transfected with a FLAG-tagged GPI-anchored form of CD59 (lanes 1 and 2) or its non-N-glycosylation mutant (N43A) (lanes 3 and 4). Two days later, proteins were immunoprecipitated by anti-CD59 mAb, followed by western blotting against anti-FLAG mAb. Right panel: a FLAG-tagged transmembrane form of CD59 was transfected instead of the FLAG-tagged GPI-anchored form. FLAG-tagged transmembrane CD59 was transfected into wild-type (lane 5) and GPI(+) mutant (lane 6) CHO cells. Download figure Download PowerPoint Aerolysin does not efficiently bind to swainsonine-treated cells We next studied what structure in N-glycan is required for the efficient aerolysin binding. First, we treated CHO(wt) cells with swainsonine, which inhibits α-mannosidase II, the enzyme that acts immediately next to GnTI in N-glycan maturation (Tulsiani and Touster, 1983; Merkle et al., 1985; Foddy et al., 1986). The swainsonine treatment decreased binding of PHA-P, confirming the inhibition of N-glycan maturation (Figure 6A). The cells treated with swainsonine inefficiently bound FLAER, compared with buffer-treated cells (Figure 6B). It is, therefore, indicated that elimination of mannose(s) by α-mannosidase II is required for the efficient binding of aerolysin (Table I). Figure 6.Inefficient binding of proaerolysin to cells treated with swainsonine. To inhibit α-mannosidase II, wild-type CHO cells were treated with 10 μg/ml swainsonine or PBS for 3 days and then incubated with 10 μg/ml FITC-conjugated PHA-P (A) and 5 nM FLAER (B). Solid lines, swainsonine-treated cells; dotted lines, buffer-treated cells. Download figure Download PowerPoint Table 1. Structure and aerolysin-binding ability of N-glycan M, mannose; N, asparagine; Gn, N-acetylgucosamine; Ga, galactose; Sa, sialic acid. The enzyme that acts next to α-mannosidase II is N-acetylglucosamine transferase II (GnTII) (Tan et al., 1995). A deficiency of GnTII causes congenital disorder of glycosylation (CDG) type IIa (Schachter and Jaeken, 1999; Aebi and Hennet, 2001). We used lymphoblastoid cells obtained from a patient with CDG type IIa (Tan et al., 1995). As positive and negative controls, we used wild-type JY25 and GPI-deficient JY5, EBV-transformed lymphoblastoid cells (Hollander et al., 1988). The GnTII-deficient cells bound PHA-P inefficiently compared with JY25 and JY5, as expected (Figure 7A–C). When stained with FLAER, GPI-deficient JY5 cells did not bind FLAER, as for other GPI-deficient cells. In contrast, GnTII-deficient cells bound FLAER as well as did wild-type JY25 cells (Figure 7D–F). Therefore, the action of GnTII is not required for efficient binding of aerolysin (Table I). Figure 7.Deficiency of GnTII does not affect binding of proaerolysin. GPI-deficient B-lymphoblastoid cells (JY5), the wild-type counterpart (JY25) and B-lymphoblastoid cells from a patient with GnTII deficiency [GnTII(−)] were incubated with PHA-P (A–C) and FLAER (D–F) at various concentrations (shown on the right). Download figure Download PowerPoint We also tested Lec8 and Lec2 CHO cells that are deficient in the terminal galactose and sialic acid, respectively, due to the defects in UDP-galactose and CMP-sialic acid transporters, respectively (Deutscher et al., 1984; Oelmann et al., 2001). We compared them with Lec1 CHO cells. The rank order for binding to PHA-P was Lec2 > Lec8 >> Lec1, as expected (Figures 8A, B and 4B, b). Lec2 and Lec8 (Figure 8C and D) but not Lec1 (Figure 4B, d) cells bound FLAER efficiently, indicating that the addition of galactose to N-acetylglucosamine is not required for the efficient binding of aerolysin (Table I). Lec2, Lec8 and wild-type cells were similarly sensitive to aerolysin (data not shown). Figure 8.Normal binding of aerolysin to Lec2 and Lec8 cells. (A and B) Binding of fluorescent-tagged PHA-P (10 μg/ml) to Lec2 (A) and Lec8 (B) cells. Bold lines, PHA-P; thin lines, PBS. (C and D) FLAER binding to Lec2 and Lec8 cells. Cells were incubated with 5 nM FLAER. Bold lines, FLAER; thin lines, PBS. Download figure Download PowerPoint Taken together, these results indicate that aerolysin binding is dependent upon N-glycan maturation, specifically α-mannosidase II-dependent removal of mannose(s) from Gn-M5-Gn2-N (Gn, N-acetylglucosamine; M, mannose; N, asparagine). Since galactose is not required, the minimum N-glycan structure for aerolysin binding would be Gn-M3-Gn2-N. N-glycan in GPA is a binding determinant for aerolysin Because GPA binds aerolysin weakly, it inhibits binding of aerolysin to the cell surface (Garland and Buckley, 1988). Although GPA is not GPI anchored, it is highly glycosylated (60% of its weight is due to a single N-glycan and 15 O-glycans) (Dill et al., 1990). We tested whether asialo-GPA inhibits aerolysin binding as well as does GPA (Figure 9). When FLAER was pre-incubated with GPA or asialo-GPA, its binding to CHO(+) cells was inhibited by both GPA (Figure 9A, a) and asialo-GPA (Figure 9A, b). Asialo-GPA was more inhibitory on a molar basis, indicating that sialic acid is not required for the association of GPA with aerolysin. Figure 9.N-glycan of GPA is the binding determinant for aerolysin. (A) GPA and asialo GPA inhibited binding of FLAER to CHO cells. FLAER (5 nM) was pre-incubated with GPA, asialo-GPA (0.5 mg/ml) or buffer for 10 min, and then incubated with CHO cells. Thin lines, buffer-treated FLAER; bold lines, GPA-treated (a) and asialo GPA-treated (b) FLAER. (B) Treatment with PNGase F abolished the inhibitory activity of asialo GPA. Samples of asialo-GPA (0.3 mg/ml) treated with PNGase F or buffer only were incubated with FLAER (5 nM) for 10 min. The mixtures were then incubated with CHO cells. Thin lines, binding of non-treated FLAER; bold lines, binding of FLAER in the presence of PNGase F-treated asialo GPA (a) or buffer-treated asialo GPA (b). Download figure Download PowerPoint To test whether the N- or the O-glycan of GPA is responsible for the inhibition of aerolysin binding, we digested asialo-GPA with either peptide N-glycanase F (PNGase F) or O-glycanase. The inhibitory activity of asialo-GPA against FLAER disappeared after PNGase F treatment (Figure 9B, a and b), but not O-glycanase treatment (data not shown). PNGase F did not affect the protein portion of asialo-GPA since silver-stained bands before and after the enzyme treatment had similar intensities. We obtained similar results with GPA (data not shown). These observations indicate that N-glycan of GPA is responsible for the association with aerolysin. SL domain of aerolysin recognizes N-glycan on GPI-anchored proteins Because the SL of aerolysin has an APT-fold structure similar to C-type lectins (Rossjohn et al., 1997), we hypothesized that it is this domain that interacts with N-glycan. To test this possibility, we prepared a fluorescently labeled SL. SL at 1 μM could bind to CHO(wt) cells significantly, but not to GPI(+) and GPI(−).U cells (Figure 10A). SL, therefore, binds to N-glycans on GPI-anchored proteins, but not to those on other proteins. Since proaerolysin (FLAER) can bind efficiently to CHO(wt) cells at 1 nM (Figure 3B), it appears that the full-length toxin has a 1000-fold higher affinity than SL for GPI-anchored proteins, in agreement with a previous report (MacKenzie et al., 1999). Figure 10.Binding of SL to N-glycan of GPI-anchored proteins. (A) Fluorescent-tagged SL bound to wild-type CHO cells (thin line) but not to GnTI-deficient GPI(+) cells (bold line) and GPI(−).U cells (dotted line). (B) SL recognized the same binding determinant as intact aerolysin. CHO(wt) cells were incubated with biotinylated proaerolysin (10 nM) (bold line) or PBS (dotted line) plus streptavidin–PE in the first step (a). In the second step, the cells were incubated with 10 μM fluorescent-tagged SL (b; bold line, cells pre-treated with biotinylated aerolysin; dotted line, cells pre-treated with PBS). Download figure Download PowerPoint To determine whether the isolated SL and the intact toxin recognize the same site on the receptors, we performed competition assays between SL and aerolysin (Figure 10B). When CHO(wt) cells were pre-incubated with 10 nM biotinylated proaerolysin (Figure 10B, a), the subsequent binding of SL at 10 μM was nearly completely inhibited (Figure 10B, b). Therefore, SL and the intact toxin recognize the same determinant, N-glycan on GPI-anchored proteins. Clostridium septicum α-toxin does not recognize N-glycan on GPI-anchored proteins The α-toxin of C.septicum is homologous to the LL domain of aerolysin (Ballard et al., 1995) and also recognizes GPI-anchored proteins on the cell surface (Gordon et al., 1999). To test whether this toxin recognizes N-glycan, like aerolysin, we assayed the killing of GPI(+) cells by the α-toxin (Figure 11A). In contrast to what was observed for aerolysin, GPI(+) and CHO(wt) cells showed a similar sensitivity to the α-toxin. GPI-deficient GPI(−).U cells were resistant to up to 10 nM α-toxin, as expected. We next stained the cells with fluorescent-labeled α-toxin. In agreement with the cell viability assay, GPI(+) and CHO(wt) cells efficiently bound α-toxin, whereas GPI(−).U cells did not (Figure 11B, a–c). These results indicated that α-toxin does not recognize N-glycan on GPI-anchored proteins. Figure 11.No requirement of N-glycan for the binding of C.septicum α-toxin. (A) GPI(+) cells were as sensitive to α-toxin as CHO(wt) cells. Percent viability is plotted as a function of the α-toxin concentration. (B) Efficient binding of α-toxin to GPI(+) cells. CHO(wt) cells (a), GPI(+) mutant (b) and GPI(−).U mutant (c) cells were incubated with various concentrations of fluorescent-tagged α-toxin. Download figure Download PowerPoint The main structural difference between aerolysin and the α-toxin is the presence of the N-terminal SL domain in aerolysin. It was reported previously that a hybrid toxin consisting of SL fused to the N-terminus of α-toxin was much more active than the α-toxin against human erythrocytes and mouse T lymphocytes (Diep et al., 1999). We thought that such a hybrid toxin might have a killing profile similar to aerolysin. In fact, CHO(wt) cells were 10 times more sensitive than GPI(+) cells to the hybrid toxin (Figure 12), indicating that SL increased the binding affinity through its ability to recognize N-glycan. Figure 12.CHO(wt) cells were 10-fold more sensitive to hybrid toxin consisting of SL and α-toxin than GPI(+) cells. CHO(wt), GPI(+) mutant and GPI(−).U mutant cells were incubated with the hybrid toxin. Percent cell viability determined by MTT assay is plotted as a function of the toxin concentration. Download figure Download PowerPoint Discussion A ma" @default.
• W2013177319 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2013177319 creator A5002317398 @default.
• W2013177319 creator A5005083287 @default.
• W2013177319 creator A5018231369 @default.
• W2013177319 creator A5041156218 @default.
• W2013177319 creator A5056225358 @default.
• W2013177319 creator A5072623856 @default.
• W2013177319 creator A5073688967 @default.
• W2013177319 creator A5088528604 @default.
• W2013177319 creator A5091406841 @default.
• W2013177319 date "2002-10-01" @default.
• W2013177319 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2013177319 title "Requirement of N-glycan on GPI-anchored proteins for efficient binding of aerolysin but not Clostridium septicum α-toxin" @default.
• W2013177319 cites W1484094378 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W1542354017 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W1545603006 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W1562203178 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W1578800641 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W1595465814 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W161342012 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W1891864413 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W1944304173 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W1952266054 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W1985829798 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W1992234272 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W1992240468 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W1992740312 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2014798355 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2022408153 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2034064448 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2044149109 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2045164622 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2055071063 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2055455449 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2055698225 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2057359971 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2061254873 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2064001748 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2070447989 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2071815649 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2071869547 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2080323034 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2081978633 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2082557203 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2083995600 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2099694432 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2099992960 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2107024954 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2111832767 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2114283841 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2116418998 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2116467451 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2121783932 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2122116013 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2138340768 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2138447045 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2144077307 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2156852013 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2157180260 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2161622051 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2161998178 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W2227071218 @default.
• W2013177319 cites W4322697748 @default.
• W2013177319 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/cdf508" @default.
• W2013177319 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/129030" @default.
• W2013177319 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12356721" @default.
• W2013177319 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W2013177319 type Work @default.
• W2013177319 sameAs 2013177319 @default.
• W2013177319 citedByCount "105" @default.
• W2013177319 countsByYear W20131773192012 @default.
• W2013177319 countsByYear W20131773192013 @default.
• W2013177319 countsByYear W20131773192014 @default.
• W2013177319 countsByYear W20131773192015 @default.
• W2013177319 countsByYear W20131773192016 @default.
• W2013177319 countsByYear W20131773192017 @default.
• W2013177319 countsByYear W20131773192018 @default.
• W2013177319 countsByYear W20131773192019 @default.
• W2013177319 countsByYear W20131773192020 @default.
• W2013177319 countsByYear W20131773192021 @default.
• W2013177319 countsByYear W20131773192022 @default.
• W2013177319 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2013177319 hasAuthorship W2013177319A5002317398 @default.
• W2013177319 hasAuthorship W2013177319A5005083287 @default.
• W2013177319 hasAuthorship W2013177319A5018231369 @default.
• W2013177319 hasAuthorship W2013177319A5041156218 @default.
• W2013177319 hasAuthorship W2013177319A5056225358 @default.
• W2013177319 hasAuthorship W2013177319A5072623856 @default.
• W2013177319 hasAuthorship W2013177319A5073688967 @default.
• W2013177319 hasAuthorship W2013177319A5088528604 @default.
• W2013177319 hasAuthorship W2013177319A5091406841 @default.
• W2013177319 hasBestOaLocation W20131773191 @default.
• W2013177319 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W2013177319 hasConcept C108625454 @default.
• W2013177319 hasConcept C174319367 @default.
• W2013177319 hasConcept C206212055 @default.
• W2013177319 hasConcept C2777367657 @default.

• next