J Biol Chem, Vol. 274, Issue 32, 22266-22274, August 6, 1999
Biophysical Characterization of Lithostathine
EVIDENCES FOR A POLYMERIC STRUCTURE AT PHYSIOLOGICAL pH AND A
PROTEOLYSIS MECHANISM LEADING TO THE FORMATION OF FIBRILS*
Claire
Ceriniab,
Vincent
Peyrotc,
Cyrille
Garnierc,
Laure
Duplanc,
Stéphane
Veeslerd,
Jean-Pierre
Le Caere,
Jean-Paul
Bernardf,
Henri
Bouteillec,
Robert
Michela,
Alain
Vazig,
Patricia
Dupuyg,
Bernard
Michelh,
Yvon
Berlandi, and
Jean-Michel
Verdiercj
From a INSERM U315, Marseille, France, the
c UPRESA-CNRS 6032, Faculté de Pharmacie, 27 Bd Jean
Moulin, 13385 Marseille Cedex 05, France, the
d CRMC2-CNRS, Marseille, France, the g CIC
INSERM-APHM, Marseille, France, the h Unité de
Neurogériatrie, Hôpital Sainte-Marguerite, Marseille,
France, the i Service de Néphrologie, Hôpital
Sainte-Marguerite, Marseille, France, the e Laboratoire de
Neurobiologie, Ecole Supérieure de Physique et Chimie
Industrielles, Paris, France, the f Service de
Gastroentérologie, Hôpital Sainte-Marguerite,
Marseille, France
 |
ABSTRACT |
Lithostathine is a calcium carbonate crystal
habit modifier. It is found precipitated under the form of fibrils in
chronic calcifying pancreatitis or Alzheimer's disease. In order to
gain better insight into the nature and the formation of fibrils, we have expressed and purified recombinant lithostathine. Analytical ultracentrifugation and quasi-elastic light scattering techniques were
used to demonstrate that lithostathine remains essentially monomeric at
acidic pH while it aggregates at physiological pH. Analysis of these
aggregates by electron microscopy showed an apparently unorganized
structure of numerous monomers which tend to precipitate forming
regular unbranched fibrils. Aggregated forms seem to occur prior to the
apparition of fibrils. In addition, we have demonstrated that these
fibrils resulted from a proteolysis mechanism due to a specific
cleavage of the Arg11-Ile12 peptide bond.
It is deduced that the NH2-terminal undecapeptide of
lithostathine normally impedes fiber formation but not aggregation. A
theoretical model explaining the formation of amyloid plaques in
neurodegenerative diseases or stones in lithiasis starting from
lithostathine is described. Therefore we propose that lithostathine, whose major function is unknown, defines a new class of molecules which
is activated by proteolysis and is not involved in cytoskeleton nor
intermediate filament functions.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Chronic calcifying pancreatitis is characterized by a
lobular, patchy distribution of fibrotic areas with different intensity from neighboring pancreatic lobules. It increases the concentration of
secretory proteins in pancreatic juice and decreases the synthesis of
trypsin inhibitor and the ratio of cationic to anionic trypsinogen (1,
2). Therefore protein precipitates constitute the first visual stage of
the disease. Protein plugs are often found in the ductal and acinar
lumina and in the calcified calculi. Morphological studies suggest that
mature calculi later observed in chronic calcifying pancreatitis are
made of calcite (CaCO3 crystals) deposited on a network of
fibrillar proteins mainly composed of a protein called lithostathine.
Lithostathine, originally called pancreatic stone protein (3), is a
secretory protein mainly produced by pancreatic acinar cells. The
secretory form of lithostathine, called S2, comprises 144 amino acids.
It tightly binds CaCO3 crystals modifying its crystal habit
in vitro (4). Trypsin hydrolysis of the Arg-Ile bond in
position 11-12 generates a polypeptide of 133 amino acids, called S1,
insoluble at physiological pH, which is the form extracted from
pancreatic calculi (5). This form has been independently evidenced in
pancreatic juice by Gross and collaborators (6) and called pancreatic
thread protein because it undergoes fibril formation. The amino acid
sequences of pancreatic thread protein and lithostathine S1 are
identical. Pancreatic thread protein has been immunolocalized in the
brain of patients with Alzheimer's disease or Down's syndrome
(7).
Amino acid comparisons have shown that lithostathine is identical to
reg protein (8). Reg cDNA is expressed in
regenerating islets but not in the normal islets (9) which means that
its synthesis is up-regulated in association with
-cell agression and could be a defense mechanism against Type I diabetes mellitus (10).
In addition, reg mRNA is expressed in various digestive cancers whereas it is not synthesized in the corresponding normal tissues (9, 11). Finally, the overexpression of reg/lithostathine mRNA by cytokines or glucocorticoids has also been shown in
inflammatory mechanisms like acute pancreatitis (12).
Therefore, lithostathine appears to be a key protein involved in
several biochemical events and whose function is unknown. Although
lithostathine fibrils have already been observed in vivo, no
in vitro studies have been so far undertaken to better
understand the formation of polymers and fibrils in physiological conditions.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Materials--
All biochemical reagents were purchased from
Prolabo, Carlo Erba, Merck, or Fluka. Trypsin sequencing grade was from
Roche Molecular Biochemicals. Methotrexate and BApNA
(N-
-benzoyl-LD-arginine p-nitroanilide) were from Sigma. For two-dimensional
electrophoresis, resolytes were from BDH and sigmoidal immobilized pH
gradient strips (pH 3-10) were from Amersham Pharmacia Biotech.
cDNA Cloning--
The coding sequence of lithostathine was
obtained by polymerase chain reaction from a cDNA previously
isolated in our laboratory (13) using a forward primer
GGCGAAGCTTATGGCTCAGACCAGCTCATAC (ending at +375) and a reverse
primer GGCGAAGCTTCTAGTTTTTGAACTTGCAGAC (ending at +2728). The
polymerase chain reaction products were then cloned into the
EcoRI site of pKCR6 (14) using conventional restriction
digestion/ligation reactions and sequenced. The lithostathine cDNA
construct containing pKCR6 was then purified using the plasmid maxi kit
(Qiagen) and used to transfect Chinese hamster ovary cells.
Cell Culture and Transfection--
Dhfr
Chinese hamster ovary cells, strain DUKX (15), were grown in RPMI 1640 medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, nonessential amino
acids, amino acids, penicillin/streptomycin, and 10 mg/liter ATP,
thymidine, and deoxyadenosine at 37 °C in a humidified atmosphere
containing 5% CO2. Cell transfections were done with
Dosper Liposomal Transfection Reagent (Roche Molecular Biochemicals)
according to the manufacturer's instructions. After 2 days, the cells
were subcultured 1:3 into the same medium without ATP, thymidine, and
deoxyadenosine. Macroscopic dhfr+ colonies
appearing after 10-12 days were pooled and cultured. In order to
increase lithostathine production, the dhfr+
colonies were subjected to methotrexate selection at 2 µM
as described previously (16).
Preparation of Monoclonal Antibodies--
Fifty mg of ascites
fluid (D4, Immunotech) in 1.5 M glycine, 1.5 M
NaCl, pH 8.9, were loaded onto a proteine A-agarose column (Roche
Molecular Biochemicals), washed with the same buffer, and eluted in 0.1 M citric acid, pH 6.0. The yield of purification was about
95%. The antibodies were then dialyzed against phosphate-buffered saline and coupled to 13 ml of an Affi-Gel 10 column (Bio-Rad) according to the manufacturer's instructions.
Immunopurification of Recombinant Lithostathine--
All
procedures were carried out at 4 °C. One liter of culture medium was
centrifugated for 10 min at 3000 rpm to remove cellular debris and
clarified by 80% ammonium sulfate fractionation for 2 h. The
pellet was then recovered by centrifugation at 3000 rpm for 70 min,
redissolved in 200 ml of bi-distilled water, and extensively dialyzed
against 40 liters of water for 72 h. The dialysate was then
adjusted to 500 ml with 50 ml of the 10 times antibody binding buffer
(200 mM MES,1 2 M NaCl, 10 mM benzamidine, pH 7.3), filtered on
0.45 µm. Immunoadsorption was carried out for 9 h with 150 ml of
dialysate, after which the beads were washed successively with 130 ml
of 1 times antibody binding buffer, 100 ml of 1.5% Triton X-100, 500 mM NaCl, pH 7.5, and finally 130 ml of 1 times antibody
binding buffer without benzamidine. Lithostathine is eluted with 0.2 M glycine, pH 2.8, and concentrated with Vivaspin
(Vivascience) at about 2 mg/ml. Samples were kept in this buffer at
20 °C before use to avoid aggregation. For electron microscopy,
trypsination, or proteolysis studies, lithostathine was further
purified on high performance liquid chromatography by passage through a
Mono-S column (Pharmacia) as described previously (17) to remove
degradation products which might have formed, frozen in liquid nitrogen
and finally stored at
80 °C.
Gel Electrophoresis--
SDS-PAGE was performed on 15%
polyacrylamide slab gels. Gels were then stained in 0.1% Coomassie
Brilliant Blue R-250. Two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis (PAGE) was performed as essentially described by
Hochstrasser and Merril (18) and Hochstrasser et al. (19).
Gels were stained with silver nitrate and scanned on a Personal
Densitometer SI (50 µm/pixel, 12 bits/pixel, Molecular Dynamics) and
subsequently analyzed on a workstation equipped with the Melanie II
two-dimensional PAGE software (Bio-Rad) originally developed by Wilkins
et al. (20). For proteolysis experiments, aliquots of
lithostathine were withdrawn, directly frozen in liquid nitrogen, and
kept at
80 °C before use.
Mass Spectrometry--
Molecular masses of the proteins were
determined by MALDI-TOF (matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization
time-of-flight) mass spectrometry. Spectra were recorded in linear mode
with a MALDI-TOF mass spectrometer (Voyager Elite, Perseptive
Biosystems Inc.) equipped with a delayed extraction. External
calibration was performed using the single and double charge ion of
horse heart myoglobin. The samples were mixed 1:1 (v/v) with a
saturated solution of sinapinic acid (3,5-dihydroxybenzoic acid,
Aldrich) in 0.1% aqueous trifluoroacetic acid as a matrix.
Protein Sequencing--
Gels stained with R-250 were first
incubated for 2 h in 50 mM boric acid, 0.1% SDS, pH
8, and transferred onto Immobilon-P membranes (Millipore) in 50 mM boric acid, 50 mM Trizma (Tris base) for
8 h at 35 V. The protein bands were then excised with a razor
blade and peaks were separated by high performance liquid chromatography (Beckman 125S) on PR C8 reverse phase column
(Perkin-Elmer). NH2-terminal sequencing were carried out on
a Beckman LF 3000 protein sequencer. When necessary,
reduction/alkylation were performed by standard procedures.
Quasi-elastic Light Scattering Experiments--
QELS
measurements were performed with a 5-watt argon-ion laser (Model 2017, Spectra Physics) and a SEM 633 goniometer coupled to a real time
correlator RTG (Sematech) of 12 channels. The power of the laser ranged
from 50 to 500 mW depending on protein concentration. The data were
recorded at a scatterring angle of 90° to the incident laser beam and
the sampling time was 0.8 µs. Lithostathine samples were analyzed at
a constant temperature of 20 °C with a total volume of 100 µl. All
proteins solution were dialyzed extensively against the buffers and
prefiltered through a 0.45-µm syringe filters (LCR Millex, Millipore)
to remove any dust particles that would alter the QELS measurements.
Samples were then placed in a 12-mm diameter cylindrical flat
bottom-glass cuvette which was immersed in a 80-mm diameter
index-matching bath filled with 0.22-µm filtered methaxylene and
thermostatted at 20 °C. Solvent density and viscosity were,
respectively, taken equal to 1.002 and 1.3329, i.e. the
water values.
The experiments consist of measuring the time-dependent
fluctuations of the scattered light intensity at a scattering
vector,
|
(Eq. 1)
|
where n is the refractive index of the solution and
the scattering angle. These fluctuations are described by the
intensity of the autocorrelation function (ACF) determined by the
method of cumulant analysis (21),
|
(Eq. 2)
|
where the first cumulant k1 defines the
diffusion coefficient (D) governing the initial decay of the
autocorrelation function,
|
(Eq. 3)
|
and k2 is the standard deviation of the
distribution. The polydispersity
of the system is therefore
determined by,
|
(Eq. 4)
|
For monodisperse solutions of non-interacting particles, the
polydispersity is theoretically equal to zero. For interacting and/or
polydisperse particles, i.e. the existence of several types of aggregates, the polydispersity is high (
> 6%), and the
cumulant analysis gave only qualitative information on the molecules in solution. Therefore, to determine a particle size distribution, the
QELS data were analyzed by an algorithm based on the singular system
and exponential sampling method (22). However, it must be borne in mind
that, as the inversion of Laplace transform in photon correlation
spectroscopy is an ill-posed problem, no single solution exists.
The mean hydrodynamic radius (<RH>) was
determined using the Stokes-Einstein equation,
|
(Eq. 5)
|
where kB is the Boltzmann constant,
T the absolute temperature, and
the viscosity of the solution.
Analytical Ultracentrifugation--
Equilibrium sedimentation
and sedimentation velocity were performed using a Beckman Model E
ultracentrifuge equipped with an electronic speed control and a rotor
temperature internal control. Equilibrium sedimentation experiments
were done in an AnD rotor at 52,000 rpm and 20 °C using the
high-speed procedure (23). Lithostathine samples were at 1.3 mg/ml in
0.1 M citrate-phosphate, pH 4, and overnight dialyzed
against the same buffer before sedimentation equilibrium. Data were
collected at 1-h intervals after equilibrium has been established,
generally after 20 h, and the fringe displacement was read in the
microcomparator. The distribution of a single, homogeneous species
within the ultracentrifuge cell at equilibrium can be described by the
following equation (derived from the Lamm equation),
|
(Eq. 6)
|
where,
|
(Eq. 7)
|
in which cr and cm are the
concentrations of the protein at radial position, r, and at
a reference position, rm (i.e. the
meniscus), respectively. M is the monomer molecular weight,
the partial specific volume of lithostathine, equal to
0.718 ml/g, as calculated by the method of Lee and Timasheff (24),
the angular velocity, and R is the gas
constant. Solvent density
was taken equal to 1.0.
Sedimentation velocity experiments were done in 0.1 M
phosphate-citrate, pH 4, at 60,000 rpm and 20 °C with protein
concentrations ranging from 2 to 5 mg/ml. In experiments using
Schlieren optics, two samples were loaded into double sector cells with
regular and wedge windows in an AnD rotor. After reaching full
centrifugation speed of 60,000 rpm, 10 data sets per run were collected
at 4-min intervals. Profiles were recorded on Kodak films and the
position of the maxima was measured in a Nikon microcomparator equipped with a digital display. The concentration dependence of the
sedimentation coefficients was considered in terms of the standard
equation,
|
(Eq. 8)
|
where g is the hydrodynamic coefficient,
CT the total concentration of protein expressed in
mg/ml, and S° the sedimentation coefficient at zero
protein concentration.
Electron Microscopy--
A drop of 1 mg/ml lithostathine
solution was applied to a Formvar-coated copper grid. After 60 s,
the grid was dried with a filter paper and stained for 1 min in 1.5%
(v/v) uranyl acetate. Specimens were then observed in a Jeol 1220 transmission electron microscope operating at 80 kV.
Trypsin-like Activity of Lithostathine Preparation--
Purified
lithostathine was tested for trypsin-like activity with BApNA as a
substrate and was compared with trypsin activity. Three purified
lithostathine concentrations (1, 2, and 4 µM) and three
trypsin concentrations (1, 5, and 10 nM) were tested.
Experiments were performed at 37 °C in thermostated cuvettes. 30 mM stock solution in dimethyl sulfoxide was diluted 1:30 in
15 mM Tris-Cl, pH 8.5, in a final volume of 1 ml to
initiate the reaction (final BApNA concentration 1 mM).
p-Nitroanilides liberated by tryptic or trypsin-like
activity were measured with a Beckman DU 7400 spectrophotometer at 410 nm at 2-min intervals over a 120-min period. Under these experimental
conditions, linearity between p-nitroanilide accumulation
and duration of incubation was maintained up to 120 min. Experimental
points collected after an incubation time of 15 min were analyzed by
linear regression and trypsin-like activity was calculated as the rate
of A410 nm min
1 compared with
control without protein and converted to nanomolar min
1
using an extinction coefficient for p-nitroanilide of
410 nm = 8,800 M
1
cm
1. Units for specific tryptic activity were expressed
in micromole min
1 mg
1.
 |
RESULTS |
Characterization of Recombinant Lithostathine--
The overall
yield of lithostathine production from culture medium after
purification onto an immunoaffinity column was about 1 mg/liter. As
shown on Fig. 1A, the
recombinant lithostathine migrated as a single spot on two-dimensional
PAGE after silver nitrate staining. This indicates the high homogeneity
of lithostathine preparation. The apparent molecular mass estimated at
15,500 Da is in good agreement with the theoretical calculated value
(16,275 Da). However, when purified from pancreatic juice,
lithostathine exhibits several apparent molecular masses from 16 to 22 kDa in SDS-PAGE due to the presence of O-linked glycans
attached to the Thr in position 5 (25). Our results indicate that
recombinant lithostathine is not or slightly glycosylated. The pI
estimated at 5.0 is slightly different from the theoretical value of
5.66. However, a discrepancy of about 0.5 pH unit is often observed for
small proteins which display a low buffer capacity (26).

View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Homogeneity of the lithostathine
preparation. Homogeneity of lithostathine preparation was assessed
by two-dimensional electrophoresis (A) and sedimentation
velocity (B). A, the apparent molecular mass
(MW) and the isoelectric point (pI) of
lithostathine were determined by co-migration of 100 ng of
lithostathine with a serum sample (not shown) and analysis by the
MELANIE II software package (see "Experimental Procedures"). The
arrow indicates the spot of lithostathine. B,
sedimentation velocity of lithostathine. The sedimentation coefficient,
S20,w was determined from the slope of
ln(rm) versus
2t as a function of lithostathine
concentration. Inset, Schlieren micrograph of lithostathine
samples at 2 mg/ml (upper) and 4 mg/ml (lower).
The photograph was taken 8 min after reaching maximum speed of 60,000 rpm at 20 °C (see "Experimental Procedures"), at a bar angle of
65°.
|
|
By sedimentation equilibrium we determined the molecular weight of
native recombinant lithostathine dialyzed overnight against 0.1 M citrate-phosphate, pH 4. This gave a molecular weight of 16,200 ± 500 (n = 3) highly compatible with the
theoretical monomer value (not shown). The sedimentation velocity
experiments realized in 0.1 mM phosphate-citrate buffer, pH
4, demonstrated that lithostathine sedimented as a single and
symmetrical peak at s20,w0 = 2.04 ± 0.06 S (Fig. 1B). This reflects the high degree
of homogeneity of the lithostathine preparation. The hydrodynamic
non-ideality of lithostathine causes a negative dependence of the
sedimentation coefficient s20,w0
on protein concentration, which fits well to the equation,
|
(Eq. 9)
|
pH and CaCl2 Effects on Diffusion Coefficient and
Polydispersity of Lithostathine--
QELS experiments have been
undertaken because of their advantage of rapid analysis, without
perturbation of the system, thereby facilitating the study of
macromolecules in solution (27-34). Table I summarized the main parameters measured
by these experiments. The mean diffusion coefficient (<D>)
of lithostathine molecules, which is related to the motion of
macromolecules in solution, is about 3 times higher at pH 4 than at pH
8 (1.6 versus 0.6 cm2 s
1). Since
the more the diffusion coefficient is high, the more the protein is
small, these results indicate that lithostathine forms aggregates at pH
8. Furthermore, <D> does not change with protein
concentration (1.66 versus 1.47 cm2
s
1 at pH 4 and 0.58 versus 0.55 cm2 s
1 at pH 8 for 6 and 9 mg/ml,
respectively). This is well explained by the fact that, when
polydispersity in high, small variations of attraction or repulsion
between molecules are not detected. In addition, the polydispersity
(
) is about 1.5 times higher at basic than at acidic pH (about
70.4% versus 48.5% for 6 mg/ml and about 79.0%
versus 53.1% for 9 mg/ml). Since monodispersity is
established for
< 6% (27), it clearly indicates that
lithostathine solutions are polydispersed. However, at acidic pH the
values of the hydrodynamic radius <RH> at 6 and 9 mg/ml are about 1.3 nm whereas at basic pH, both values turn around 38 nm. The calculated ratio of <RH> at basic to
acidic pH is about 28. Assuming the packing of spheres, this ratio
means the existence of 283
22,000 times more molecules
in the aggregated forms at basic pH which is in good agreement with
micrographs (see Fig. 4B). Again, these values are
independent of the protein concentration (1.28 versus 1.45 nm and 36.8 versus 39.1 nm) because of the high polydispersity of the system. In the presence of 7.5 mM
CaCl2, the values for <D> and
<RH> are between the values observed at
acidic and basic pH. Furthermore, the polydispersity reaches about
90%. Although it seems to form smaller aggregates than at basic pH,
this indicates that the system is also disturbed by the presence of
CaCl2 and this could be due to re-arrangement of
polymers.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table I
Interaction parameters obtained from quasi-light scattering
measurements of lithostathine solution at different pH and
concentrations
After purification by immunoaffinity, lithostathine samples were
extensively dialyzed against indicated buffer before subjected to QELS
experiments. This table summarizes the main parameters determined:
<D> represents the mean diffusion coefficient,
<RH> the mean hydrodynamic radius, and the
polydispersity of the solution expressed.
|
|
Particle Size Distribution of Lithostathine--
To gain better
insight into the behavior of lithostathine in solution, we looked at
the evolution of the particle size distribution (Fig.
2). Whatever the conditions, various
kinds of populations, those average size is indicated by their
hydrodynamic diameter (DH)S.S., coexist
in solution. However, a population of about 4.4 nm (6 mg/ml, Fig.
2A) or 5.2 nm (9 mg/ml, Fig. 2C) is observed at
acidic pH only. If we look at the overall shape of lithostathine
structure determined by x-ray crystallography (4.5 × 3.0 × 2.5 nm, Ref. 35), this population most probably represents the
monomers. The diffused intensity varies as the radius to the power of
six. Therefore, for the same given intensity, the number of monomers is
considerably larger than the polymers. For instance, in Fig.
2A, a population of 4.4 nm represents about 1.5 × 105 and 109 times more than the population of
32 and 140 nm, respectively. The same remarks apply to Fig.
2C. On the contrary, in all other conditions, monomers
totally disappeared in aid of several types of aggregates (Fig. 2,
B and D). Interestingly, in the presence of
CaCl2 at pH 8 (Fig. 2E), we observed a
neopopulation around 7 nm which could be dimers. It therefore seems
that Ca2+ ions could play the same role as protons at
acidic pH. This observation corroborates the hypothesis of
re-arrangement deduced from the data of Table I. In conclusion, our
QELS measurements have shown that (i) lithostathine forms aggregates,
(ii) the aggregates are of various sizes (polydispersity),
and (iii) monomers are only observed at acidic pH.

View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Particle size distribution of
lithostathine. The QELS pattern was obtained for lithostathine at
6 mg/ml (A and B) or 9 mg/ml (C and
D) in 0.1 M citrate/phosphate buffer, pH 4 (A and C), or in 15 mM Tris-Cl, pH 8 (B and D) and in 15 mM Tris-Cl, pH 8, 7.5 mM CaCl2, pH 8 (E). The average
size of the hydrodynamic diameter, calculated by the singular system
method ((DH)S.S., in nanometers), is
indicated above the peaks (see "Experimental
Procedures"). P(D) represents the percentage of
the diffused intensity but does not reflect the mass distribution. The
observed values are only indicatives.
|
|
Trypsination of Lithostathine--
The electrophoretic pattern
observed in Fig. 3A showed
that trypsin digestion lead to the transformation of lithostathine S2
into the S1 form as already described by Rouimi et al. (36). However, the amount of soluble S1 is about 1.5 less than the total of
lithostathine S2. This indicates that trypsination is concomitant with
protein precipitation and the formation of fibrils as shown in Fig.
3B. The packing of homopolymeric fibrils lead to the
formation of fibers which can reach about 2 µm in length and 50 nm in
width (Fig. 3B, left). They are made of very regular packing
of several fibrils, about six most of the time (Fig. 3B,
right). These results confirm that the
Arg11-Ile12 bond in lithostathine S2 is
particularly susceptible to trypsin hydrolysis. Prolonged incubation
time did not result in an increase trypsin digestion. This observation
suggests that these polymers are resistant to proteolysis.

View larger version (63K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Trypsin digestion of lithostathine.
A, gel electrophoresis of 1 mg/ml lithostathine digested
with 1% (w/w) sequencing grade trypsin during 30 min at 37 °C in
Tris-Cl, 5 mM, pH 8.5, 40 mM NaCl, 20 mM CaCl2. Lane 1, S2 form of
lithostathine; lane 2, lithostathine digested with trypsin.
The molecular weight markers (LMW, Amersham Pharmacia
Biotech) are indicated on the left. B, electron
micrographs of lithostathine incubated in the presence of
trypsin.
|
|
Proteolysis Studies--
To confirm that polymeric species exist
prior to precipitation, SDS-PAGE and transmission electron microscopy
experiments will be undertaken. During incubation of lithostathine at
pH 8, which is the pH of pancreatic juice, the evolution of pattern, as
indicated in Fig. 4A and Table
II, shows the progressive disappearance of the S2 form. As incubation continues, it accumulates in a single faster migration species called S1-like because it displays the same
apparent molecular weight as S1 in SDS-PAGE. In addition there is some
minor forms which do not seem to be part of the main proteolysis
mechanism since they appeared before the formation of the S1-like form
and finally represent only about 10% of the total proteolysis
products. After 10 days, there is an almost complete loss of S2 band
(0.7% remaining) to essentially give the S1-like form (87.7%).
Although we cannot rule out the presence of cofactors which could help
the hydrolysis of monomers, it is very unlikely since using several
other buffers or salts did not change our results (not shown). Fig.
4B shows micrographs of the species observed in Fig.
4A. From its observation, it is clear that the first stage
of fibrils assembly is the formation of molecular oligomers. If we
compare Fig. 4, A and B, after 4 days of
incubation, although part of lithostathine is proteolyzed, no fibrils
are observed. This indicates that S1 remains soluble until a given concentration is reached. Afterward, fibers of lithostathine, which are
made of several fibrils, appeared (Fig. 4B, 8-10 days). There are smooth, unbranched threads of uniform diameter of around 30-50 nm width. They do not seem helically coiled. The fibrils formed
in vitro are indistinguishable from trypsin digestion (this study) or from pancreas-derived fibrils and are resistant to further proteolysis (37). They consist of several strands, about six. No other
ordered stuctures were seen in any of these preparations. Control
experiments (Fig. 4C) showed that lithostathine is almost not aggregated at pH 4, but, prolonged time over 10 days, lithostathine formed disordered aggregates. But we never observed neither large structure nor proteolysis. Also of interest was that the long time
before assembly of lithostathine into fibrils demonstrated that the
cleavage of S2 into S1-like was largely complete before fibril
formation was initiated. It indicates that most, if not all, the
cleavages occurred in solution and therefore we have never observed a
mixture of oligomers and fibrils. It also suggests that the phenomenons
are subsequent and not concomittant. However, rather ordered structures
could be observed (Fig. 4B, 12 h). It is therefore
possible that fibrillar structures may exist at early times but they
may just be much shorter than the fibrils formed after 10 days of
incubation. Similar observations were also made for procollagen and
collagen II (38).

View larger version (72K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Proteolysis of lithostathine.
A, gel electrophoresis of lithostathine incubated for
various time in sterile 15 mM Tris-Cl, pH 8. Aliquots of 10 µg of 1 mg/ml solution were successively withdrawn at several days
(as indicated above the tracks) and loaded on a 15% SDS-PAGE. The
molecular weight markers (LMW, Amersham Pharmacia Biotech)
are indicated on the left. B, electron
micrographs of lithostathine solution incubated at room temperature
either in 0.1 M citrate/phosphate, pH 4, or 15 mM Tris-Cl, pH 8, for several periods of time. Upper
right inset, magnification showing the stacking of fibrils.
C, control experiments in 0.1 M
citrate/phosphate buffer, pH 4.
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table II
Evolution of lithostathine pattern during proteolysis
After proteolysis experiments, lithostathine fragments were separated
by SDS-PAGE and the gel was stained with Coomassie Blue and
scannerized. The intensity of a given band, expressed as its percentage
to the sum of all bands in each lane, was determined by the MELANIE II
software package. The different fragments were then subjected to
NH2-terminal sequencing as described under "Experimental
Procedures." X: unknown.
|
|
MALDI-TOF Analysis and NH2-terminal
Sequencing--
Analysis by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry in positive
mode of lithostathine digested by trypsin (Fig.
5A) or autolyzed (Fig. 5B) indicated a main fragment in both cases at 15,021.5 (M + H+, S1) and 15,021.6 (M + H+, S1-like),
respectively. The predicted value of S1 monomer
(Ile12-Asn144) is 15,022.73. Considering the
accuracy of measurement (about 0.1%) this indicates that both
fragments are most probably S1. Therefore, we conclude that the main
trypsin digestion (Arg11-Ile12) and proteolysis
sites are the same. Both fragments were subjected to
NH2-terminal sequencing (Table II). Surprisingly, if
NH2-terminal sequencing of S1 gave the expected sequence
(12-ISCPEG ... ), the S1-like molecule revealed an unusual
feature: the two first amino acids (Ile12 and
Ser13) were probably modified since we were unable to
identify it by Edman degradation. This observation indicates that the
mechanism of proteolysis (i) involves at least these two amino acids,
and (ii) is different from the trypsin-like digestion mechanism.

View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
MALDI-TOF mass spectrometric analysis of
lithostathine. Aliquots of lithostathine (15 pmol) digested by
trypsin (A) or submitted to proteolysis (B) have
been dialyzed against water, lyophilized, and resuspended in 3 µl of
5% formic acid. Spectra have been recorded by mixing 0.5 µl of
sample with 0.5 µl of matrix solution. The fragments were assigned by
data base matching using the MS-DIGEST program of the Protein
Prospector package (University of California) with the mature
sequences of lithostathine and trypsin. Dots ( ) in
A correspond to lithostathine fragments whereas others have
been attributed to trypsin.
|
|
Proteolytic Activity of Lithostathine--
In order to definitely
rule out the presence of small amounts of trypsin-like protease
activity, we incubated increasing concentrations of purified
recombinant lithostathine in the presence of BApNA, a synthetic
molecule known to be the substrate of trypsin-like proteases (Fig.
6). Lithostathine activity was compared
with controls performed with low trypsin concentration. Our results
show that the BApNA rate of hydrolysis is linearly dependent of trypsin concentration even at 1 nM. This indicates that in our
experimental conditions, we reached the Vmax. By
first using 1 µM lithostathine, we found a specific
activity of 3.6 × 10
4 µmol·min
1
mg
1 of protein, which was already 400 times less than
trypsin specific activity (Table III).
Furthermore, with increasing concentrations of lithostathine (2 and 4 µM which correspond to 2000 and 4000 times more,
respectively, than trypsin in control experiments), no specific
activity could be evidenced. These results clearly showed that (i)
lithostathine preparation is not contaminated with trypsin-like
proteases, (ii) lithostathine by itself does not display a typical
trypsin-like activity.

View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Trypsin-like activity monitored by BApNA
hydrolysis. Lithostathine recombinant preparation (1, 2, and 4 µM) was examined for its putative trypsin-like
proteolytic activity using BApNA as substrate. Control experiments were
performed with trypsin (1, 5, and 10 nM). The rate of BApNA
hydrolysis was calculated through the increasing absorbance at 410 nm
due to p-nitroanilide formation ( 410 nm = 8,800 M 1 cm 1). For 2 µM lithostathine, experiments were made in
triplicate.
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table III
Trypsin and lithostathine BApNA hydrolyzing activity
Lithostathine preparation was analyzed for its ability to hydrolyze
BApNA and was compared to trypsin-hydrolyzing activity. A minus sign
means that the slope of the curve is lower than the control
experiments. Experiment 5 was made in triplicate.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
Attempts to study aggregation and fiber formation of lithostathine
have been hitherto hampered by the difficulty of obtaining homogeneous
preparations of the native protein. Extraction from pancreatic juice
was indeed often limited by trypsin contamination when trypsinogen is
activated. As separation of lithostathine from trypsin cannot be easily
achieved by chromatography, the resulting precipitation was
systematically attributed to trypsin digestion. On the other hand,
lithostathine purification from urine provides too little protein to
allow biochemical studies. Therefore, the production of recombinant
lithostathine by mammal cells proved to be essential for this study.
Using pure preparation of lithostathine, we have shown that
lithostathine spontaneously aggregates and proteolyzes at pH of pancreatic juice. Similar results were observed at pH 7 in various buffers (not shown). The fact that proteolysis always followed aggregation suggests that it could be inter-molecular rather than intra-molecular. However, in diluted solutions of lithostathine, no
particular delays in fibril formation have been observed (not shown).
In the absence of additional data, it is therefore difficult to
privilege one hypothesis than another.
The fact that the main site of proteolysis or trypsin digestion is
identical suggests a particular structure. Looking at the three-dimensional structure of lithostathine actually shows two well
separated domains: the NH2-terminal one (1-14) and the
COOH-terminal (15-144) containing an hydrophobic region very closed to
the amino-terminal region
(35).2 This hinge region is
very accessible which explains its great susceptibility to proteolysis.
Therefore we think that the removal of the unusually charged
NH2-terminal undecapeptide would lead to the exposure of
this hydrophobic region to the solvent and consequently to the
precipitation of protein.
These results showed that, at least, part of the in vivo
degradation of lithostathine could be unambiguously attributed to a
peculiar proteolysis, especially in the brain where trypsin is absent
(although another type of serine protease may play the same role as
trypsin in pancreas). But the reason of such a behavior is unknown. It
has been postulated that the susceptibility of eukaryotic proteins to
proteolysis is due to correlation of protease-sensitive regions with
genomic splice junctions (39). However, examination of the genomic
structure of reg/lithostathine (40) does not support this hypothesis
since exon 3 of lithostathine encodes amino acids 1 to 61. Therefore,
this behavior is not due to a simple structural reason. Autolysis has
been often described in the case of protease activity regulation. For
instance, thermolysin (41) or calpain II (42) autolyses in the presence
of Ca2+. Upon Ca2+ binding to the
calmodulin-like domain of µ-calpain subunits, they become active and
autolyze (43). Our results have clearly shown that lithostathine does
not display trypsin-like proteolytic activity nor lipase and
chymotrypsin activity as already described (44, 45). Therefore,
although not all the proteasic activities have been tested, it is
unlikely that lithostathine displays such a property. In addition, it
is noteworthy from our experiments that lithostathine does not also
seem to require neither for cofactors nor for associated proteins
(chaperones) or of an energy-generating system like during the
formation of the cytoskeleton. Therefore, we conclude that all the
information needed for lithostathine fibril formation is contained in
the molecules themselves. A possibility is that lithostathine undergoes
an autolytic cleavage. Another possibility is that it contains an
unusually unstable Arg11-Ile12 peptide bond at
the hinge region between the NH2-terminal and the
COOH-terminal domains.
The biological significance of this self-aggregation and proteolysis or
possible autolysis phenomenons remains unclear but it could have
important consequences. For instance, as lithostathine is a stress
protein expressed at very early stages of Alzheimer's disease,3 its precipitation
under fibrils, as a "primum novens" of the disease, may trigger the
heterogeneous nucleation of other proteins like the
-amyloid
protein. This is described in Fig. 7
where we propose a theoretical model explaining the formation of
plaques in Alzheimer's disease or stone formation in pancreatic or
kidney ducts. We have based it on rules governing mineral crystal
growth (46) and hypothesis in amyloid formation in prion diseases (47). First of all, at pH 4, S2 monomers are most probably unfolded and form
disordered aggregates after a very long incubation (see Fig.
4C). They do not evolve in larger aggregates nor in fibrils. This could be due to aging of lithostathine. On the contrary, at pH 8, the mechanism is totally different. After an initial, extremely fast,
aggregation of S2 monomers, proteolysis lead to the formation of
S1-like molecules which first remain soluble (for instance, see Fig. 4,
A and B, 4 days). Then, when the solution becomes
supersaturated regarding S1-like, i.e. it exceeds the limit
of solubility, coalescence occurs and the formation of a solid embryo
is initiated. An embryo is a sub-critical nucleus, i.e. a
non-organized cluster of molecules. At a given time, the embryo is
large enough to form a nucleus, i.e. an ordered structure. This step is called homogeneous primary nucleation. It necessitates a
very high energy called activation free energy which explains the large
delay between proteolysis and precipitation. However, the nucleus is in
labile equilibrium with respect to the solution. To grow, it must
exhibit a critical radius called r*. If it loses a molecule,
it dissolves (r < r*). If it gains a
molecule, it grows by self-assembly of nuclei (r > r*), which leads in fine to the formation of
fibrils. The fibrils keep growing by addition of new molecules, stack
together, and finally seed forming fibers. Then the growth continues by
heterogeneous primary nucleation of other proteins (like
-amyloid
peptide, for instance) or even calcium crystal salts onto the
lithostathine fiber substrate, ending to the constitution of plaques in
Alzheimer's disease or stones in pancreatic/kidney ducts,
respectively. This could explain why numerous unrelated proteins have
been found in senile plaques. In that case, seeding of lithostathine
fibrils would have a deleterious effect. A long-term consequence of the
formation of these aggregates could be the disruption of neuronal
functions leading to the death of neurones.

View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Proposed kinetic scheme for lithostathine
fiber assembly based on analogy to mineral crystallization kinetics
(46). The symbols used are: m, S2 monomers;
o, S2 oligomers; n, S1-like soluble monomers
(n<m); nu, nucleus of S1 form; and
f, S1 fibrils. r represents the radius size of a
given nucleus, whereas r* represents the critical radius
size necessary for self-assembly of nuclei and subsequent growing of
fibrils. For detailed explanations, see "Discussion."
|
|
To our knowledge, this is the first report showing that a protein, not
involved in cytoskeletal functions, connective tissue formation, or
proteolytic pathways, but involved in stress functions, undergo a
peculiar proteolysis. Because of these specific characteristics, we
think that lithostathine defines a new class of proteins undergoing amyloid formation and whose function remains unclear. For instance, pancreatitis-associated proteins (48), which displays high sequence identity with lithostathine and is often co-expressed with
lithostathine in various tissues and conditions, should belong to this class.
A large number of human diseases are caused by the accumulation of
proteins, even truncated, in an unsoluble form. Therefore, the
formation of these fibers deserves being included in further studies on
the pathophysiology of these diseases.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We gratefully acknowledge J. Y. Bottero
and R. Denoyel for help with the QELS data interpretation, P. Verrando,
A. Puigserver, and D. Lafitte for helpful discussions and critical
reading of the manuscript. We also thank M. Mansion for
NH2-terminal sequencing.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
b
Supported by the Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de
Marseille. Present address: Laboratoire d'Hématologie et
d'Immunologie, Faculté de Pharmacie, Marseille, France.
j
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel./Fax:
33-4-91-83-55-07; E-mail: verdier@pharmacie.univ-mrs.fr.
2
D. Pignol and J. F. Fontecilla-Camps,
unpublished results.
3
J. M. Verdier, unpublished data.
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
MES, 4-morpholinepropanesulfonic acid;
CaCO3, calcium carbonate;
<D>, mean diffusion coefficient;
(DH)S.S., average size of the
hydrodynamic diameter calculated by the singular system method;
MALDI-TOF, matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight;
QELS, quasi-elastic light scattering;
<RH>, mean
hydrodynamic radius;
, polydispersity;
PAGE, polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis;
BApNA, N-
-benzoyl-LD-arginine
p-nitroanilide.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Rinderknecht, H.,
Renner, I.,
and Koyama, H.
(1979)
Dig. Dis. Sci.
24,
180-186[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 2.
|
Rinderknecht, H.,
Stace, N.,
and Renner, I.
(1985)
Dig. Dis. Sci.
30,
65-71[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 3.
|
De Caro, A.,
Lohse, J.,
and Sarles, H.
(1979)
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
87,
1176-1182[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 4.
|
Geider, S.,
Baronnet, A.,
Cerini, C.,
Nitsche, S.,
Astier, J. P.,
Michel, R.,
Boistelle, R.,
Berland, Y.,
Dagorn, J. C.,
and Verdier, J. M.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
26302-26306[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 5.
|
De Caro, A.,
Multigner, L.,
Lafont, H.,
Lombardo, D.,
and Sarles, H.
(1984)
Biochem. J.
222,
669-677[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 6.
|
Gross, J.,
Brauer, A. W.,
Bringhurst, R. F.,
Corbett, C.,
and Margolies, M. N.
(1985)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
82,
5627-5631[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 7.
|
Ozturk, M.,
De La Monte, S. M.,
Gross, J.,
and Wands, J. R.
(1989)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
86,
419-423[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 8.
|
Stewart, T. A.
(1989)
Biochem. J.
260,
622-623[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 9.
|
Terazono, K.,
Uchiyama, Y.,
Ide, M.,
Watanabe, T.,
Yonekura, H.,
and Okamoto, H.
(1990)
Diabetologia
33,
250-252[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 10.
|
Watanabe, T.,
Yonemura, Y.,
Yonekura, H.,
Suzuki, Y.,
Miyashita, H.,
Sugiyama, K.,
Moriizumi, S.,
Unno, M.,
Tanaka, O.,
Kondo, H.,
Bone, A. J.,
Takasawa, S.,
and Okamoto, H.
(1994)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
91,
3589-3592[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 11.
|
Kimura, N.,
Yonekura, H.,
Okamoto, H.,
and Nagura, H.
(1992)
Cancer
70,
1857-1863[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 12.
|
Dusetti, N. J.,
Mallo, G. V.,
Ortiz, E. M.,
Keim, V.,
and Iovanna, J. L.
(1996)
Arch. Biochem. Biophys.
330,
129-132[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 13.
|
Giorgi, D.,
Bernard, J. P.,
Rouquier, S.,
Iovanna, J.,
Sarles, H.,
and Dagorn, J. C.
(1989)
J. Clin. Invest.
84,
100-106
|
| 14.
|
Matrisian, L. M.,
Bowden, G. T.,
Krieg, P.,
Fürstenberger, G.,
Briand, J. P.,
Leroy, P.,
and Breatnach, R.
(1986)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
83,
9413-9417[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 15.
|
Urlaub, G.,
and Chasin, L. A.
(1980)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
77,
4216-4220[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 16.
|
Kaufman, J. R.
(1990)
Method Enzymol.
185,
537-566
|
| 17.
|
Pignol, D.,
Bertrand, J. A.,
Bernard, J. P.,
Verdier, J. M.,
Dagorn, J. C.,
and Fontecilla-Camps, J. C.
(1995)
Proteins
23,
604-606[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 18.
|
Hochstrasser, D. F.,
and Merril, C. R.
(1988)
Appl. Theor. Electrophor.
1,
35-40[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 19.
|
Hochstrasser, D. F.,
Harrington, M. G.,
Hochstrasser, A. C.,
Miller, M. J.,
and Merril, C. R.
(1988)
Anal. Biochem.
173,
424-435[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 20.
|
Wilkins, M. R.,
Sanchez, J. C.,
Bairoch, A.,
Hochstrasser, D. F.,
and Appel, R. D.
(1996)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
21,
496-497[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 21.
|
Koppel, D. E.
(1972)
J. Chem. Phys.
57,
4814-4820[CrossRef]
|
| 22.
|
Ostrowsky, N.,
Sornette, D.,
Parker, P.,
and Pike, E. R.
(1981)
Optica Acta
28,
1059-1070
|
| 23.
|
Yphantis, D. A.
(1964)
Biochemistry
3,
297-317
|
| 24.
|
Lee, J. C.,
and Timasheff, S. N.
(1974)
Arch. Biochem. Biophys.
165,
268-273[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 25.
|
De Reggi, M.,
Capon, C.,
Gharib, B.,
Wieruszeski, J. M.,
Michel, R.,
and Fournet, B.
(1995)
Eur. J. Biochem.
230,
503-510[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 26.
|
Wilkins, M. R.,
and Gooley, A. A.
(1997)
in
Proteome Research: New Frontiers in Functional Genomics
(Wilkins, M. R.
, Williams, K. L.
, Appel, R. D.
, and Hochstrasser, D. F., eds)
, pp. 35-64, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
|
| 27.
|
Lafont, S.,
Veesler, S.,
Astier, J. P.,
and Boistelle, R.
(1994)
J. Cryst. Growth
143,
249-255
[CrossRef] |
| 28.
|
Veesler, S.,
Marcq, S.,
Lafont, S.,
Astier, J. P.,
and Boistelle, R.
(1994)
Acta Cryst. Sect. D
50,
355-360[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 29.
|
Bonneté, F.,
Malfois, M.,
Finet, S.,
Tardieu, A.,
Lafont, S.,
and Veesler, S.
(1997)
Acta Cryst. Sect. D
53,
438-447
|
| 30.
|
Cleland, J. L.,
and Wang, D. I. C.
(1990)
Biochemistry
29,
11072-11078[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 31.
|
Donovan, J. M.,
Benedek, G. B.,
and Carey, M. C.
(1987)
Biochemistry
26,
8116-8125[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 32.
|
Yarmush, D.,
Murphy, R. M.,
Colton, C. K.,
Fish, M.,
and Yarmush, M. L.
(1988)
Mol. Immunol.
25,
17-32[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 33.
|
Mikol, V.,
Hirsch, E.,
and Giegé, R.
(1989)
FEBS Lett.
258,
63-66[CrossRef]
|
| 34.
|
Kadima, W.,
McPherson, A.,
Dunn, M. F.,
and Jurnak, F. A.
(1990)
Biophys. J.
57,
125-132[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 35.
|
Bertrand, J. A.,
Pignol, D.,
Bernard, J. P.,
Verdier, J. M.,
Dagorn, J. C.,
and Fontecilla-Camps, J. C.
(1996)
EMBO J.
15,
2678-2684[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 36.
|
Rouimi, P.,
Bonicel, J.,
Rovery, M.,
and De Caro, A.
(1987)
FEBS Lett.
216,
195-199[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 37.
|
Gross, J.,
Carlson, R. I.,
Brauer, A. W.,
Margolies, M. N.,
Warshaw, A. L.,
and Wands, J. R.
(1985)
J. Clin. Invest.
76,
2115-2126
|
| 38.
|
Fertala, A.,
Sieron, A. L.,
Hojima, Y.,
Ganguly, A.,
and Prockop, D. J.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
11584-11589[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 39.
|
Danley, D. E.,
and Geoghegan, K. F.
(1988)
J. Biol. Chem.
263,
9785-9789[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 40.
|
Watanabe, T.,
Yonekura, H.,
Terazono, K.,
Yamamoto, H.,
and Okamoto, H.
(1990)
J. Biol. Chem.
265,
7432-7439[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 41.
|
Fassina, G.,
Vita, C.,
Dalzoppo, D.,
Zalmai, M.,
Zambonin, M.,
and Fontana, M.
(1986)
Eur. J. Biochem.
156,
221-228[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 42.
|
Crawford, C.,
Willis, A. C.,
and Gagnon, J.
(1987)
Biochem. J.
248,
579-588[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 43.
|
Brown, N.,
and Crawford, C.
(1993)
FEBS Lett.
322,
65-68[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 44.
|
Multigner, L.,
De Caro, A.,
Lombardo, D.,
Campese, D.,
and Sarles, H.
(1983)
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
110,
69-74[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 45.
|
De Caro, A.,
Multigner, L.,
Lafont, H.,
Lombardo, D.,
and Sarles, H.
(1984)
Biochem. J.
222,
669-677
|
| 46.
|
Boistelle, R.
(1986)
in
Advances in Nephrology
(Grünfeld, J. P., ed)
, pp. 173-217, Year Book Medical Publishers Inc., Chicago, IL
|
| 47.
|
Come, J. H.,
Fraser, P. E.,
and Lansbury, P. T., Jr.
(1993)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
90,
5959-5963[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 48.
|
Orelle, B.,
Keim, V.,
Masciotra, L.,
Dagorn, J. C.,
and Iovanna, J.
(1992)
J. Clin. Invest.
90,
2284-2291
|
Copyright © 1999 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike
Complore
Connotea