![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 275, Issue 41, 31594-31600, October 13, 2000
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1,3-Galactosyltransferase by Fusion with UDP-galactose
4-Epimerase
-Gal
EPITOPES*
From the Department of Chemistry, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202
Received for publication, May 10, 2000, and in revised form, July 14, 2000
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Two fusion enzymes consisting of uridine
diphosphogalactose 4-epimerase (UDP-galactose 4-epimerase, EC 5.1.3.2)
and Oligosaccharides are attractive targets for the development of new
pharmaceuticals because of their important roles in cell recognition,
cell signaling, and other biological processes (1, 2).
The discovery of the interaction of anti-Gal and
1,3-galactosyltransferase (EC 2.4.1.151) with an N-terminal
His6 tag and an intervening three-glycine linker were
constructed by in-frame fusion of the Escherichia coli galE
gene either to the 3' terminus (f1) or to the 5' terminus (f2)
of a truncated bovine
1,3-galactosyltransferase gene, respectively.
Both fusion proteins were expressed in cell lysate as active, soluble
forms as well as in inclusion bodies as improperly folded proteins.
Both f1 and f2 were determined to be homodimers, based on a
single band observed at about 67 kDa in SDS-polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis and on a single peak with a molecular mass
around 140 kDa determined by gel filtration chromatography for each of
the enzymes. Without altering the acceptor specificity of the
transferase, the fusion with the epimerase changed the donor
requirement of
1,3-galactosyltransferase from UDP-galactose to
UDP-glucose and decreased the cost for the synthesis of
biomedically important Gal
1,3Gal-terminated
oligosaccharides by more than 40-fold. For enzymatic synthesis
of Gal
1,3Gal
1,4Glc from UDP-glucose and lactose, the genetically
fused enzymes f1 and f2 exhibited kinetic advantages with
overall reaction rates that were 300 and 50%, respectively, higher
than that of the system containing equal amounts of epimerase and
galactosyltransferase. These results indicated that the active sites of
the epimerase and the transferase in fusion enzymes were in proximity.
The kinetic parameters suggested a random mechanism for the substrate
binding of the
1,3-galactosyltransferase. This work demonstrated a
general approach that fusion of a glycosyltransferase with an epimerase can change the required but expensive sugar nucleotide to a less expensive one.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-Gal1 epitopes
(Gal
1,3Gal-terminated oligosaccharide sequences including di-, tri-,
and pentasaccharides) have drawn increasing attention since it was
discovered that the interaction of preexisting natural antibodies
in human serum with this specific xenoactive oligosaccharide sequence
on animal cells is the main cause of hyperacute rejection in
xenotransplantation (3).
-Gal epitopes exist as glycolipids or
glycoproteins on the cell surface of mammals other than humans, apes,
and Old World Monkeys (4, 5). The unique enzyme responsible for the
formation of the terminal glycoside bond in nature is UDP-Gal:Gal
1,4GlcNHAc
1,3-galactosyltransferase (
1,3GalT), a
protein that is absent in humans due to mutational inactivation of the
gene (6, 7). In contrast, humans produce a large amount of anti-Gal
antibodies including IgG, IgM, and IgA isotypes (8).
-Gal epitopes has
led to experimental attempts to overcome hyperacute rejection by either
depleting the recipient's anti-Gal through
-Gal-immobilized affinity columns or antagonizing anti-Gal by infusing the recipient's body with soluble synthetic
-Gal oligosaccharides (9, 10). However,
such procedures require access to a substantial amount of
-Gal
oligosaccharides as well as synthetically derived
-Gal analogs and
mimetics. Due to the high cost associated with multiple protection and
deprotection steps with a tedious separation procedure at each step in
traditional chemical synthesis of oligosaccharides (11-13), the most
practical production of
-Gal oligosaccharides is by
glycosyltransferase-catalyzed enzymatic synthesis (14). Nevertheless,
since sugar nucleotides required by glycosyltransferases are
exceptionally expensive, much work has been focused on in situ sugar nucleotide regeneration through multiple-enzyme systems (15-18) and on enzymatic transformation to inexpensive sugar
derivatives. We have demonstrated that a number of
-Gal
oligosaccharides can be synthesized by glycosyltransferase-catalyzed
reactions with regeneration of UDP-Gal through a five-enzyme system
(19). Such a multiple-enzyme system undoubtedly increased the
complexity of the reaction. We also showed that a simpler alternative
was a two-enzyme system in which UDP-galactose 4-epimerase (GalE) converted relatively inexpensive sugar nucleotide UDP-Glc to UDP-Gal, and
1,3-galactosyltransferase carried out the subsequent
glycosylation reaction (19). In order to further reduce the cost of
-Gal synthesis as well as to avoid multiple fermentation for enzyme preparations, in this work two bifunctional fusion proteins containing both GalE and
1,3GalT were constructed. GalE carries out the interconversion of UDP-Glc to UDP-Gal, and
1,3GalT catalyzes the
transfer of galactose from UDP-Gal to N-acetyllactosamine or
its derivatives (Fig. 1A). The overall function of the
fusion proteins is the transfer of galactose from UDP-Glc to the
acceptor (Fig. 1B). These
fusion enzymes change the donor requirement of the
1,3GalT from
UDP-Gal to UDP-Glc. Furthermore, the fused enzyme system that catalyzes
a sequential reaction may also have a kinetic advantage over the
mixture of two separated enzymes, since the product of one enzyme
travels a shorter distance to be captured by the next enzyme (20,
21).

View larger version (21K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Reactions catalyzed by UDP-Gal
4-epimerase,
1,3-galactosyltransferase, or
fusion enzymes (f1, f2). A, reactions catalyzed
by separated UDP-Gal 4-epimerase (catalyzing the interconversion
of UDP-Glc and UDP-Gal) or
1,3-galactosyltransferase
(producing
-Gal trisaccharide from UDP-Gal and lactose).
B, reaction catalyzed by f1 or f2 (producing
-Gal
trisaccharide from UDP-Glc and lactose).
Glycosyltransferases can be classified mechanistically into two major
families, inverting glycosyltransferases and retaining glycosyltransferases, depending on the anomeric configuration at the
reaction center.
1,3GalT belongs to the retaining family, since it
transfers a galactose residue from an
-linked nucleotide diphospho
sugar (UDP-galactose) to the acceptor, forming an
-linked product
via the retention of the anomeric configuration. The reaction mechanism
was proposed to consist of two nucleophilic substitutions at the sugar
anomeric carbon including the transient formation of a glycosyl enzyme
intermediate (22-24). However, the details of the catalytic mechanism
of
1,3GalT remain unknown due to the unavailability of the
three-dimensional structure of any retaining glycosyltransferase. The
comparison of the kinetic parameters of two fusion proteins with
reverse sequence as well as of the native
1,3GalT could provide
insights into the mechanism of the
1,3GalT-catalyzed reaction.
| |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Chemicals and Reagents--
Plasmid vector pET15b was purchased
from Novagen Inc., Madison, WI. Ni2+-NTA-agarose,
polymerase chain reaction purification kit, QIAEX II gel extraction
kit, QIAamp tissue kit, and DNA miniprep spin kit were from Qiagen
(Santa Clarita, CA). All restriction enzymes, Taq DNA
polymerase, 1-kb DNA ladder, and T4 DNA ligase were obtained from
Promega (Madison, WI).
-Lactose
(4-O-
-D-galactopyranosyl-
-D-glucose), D(+)-galactosamine, melibiose
(6-O-
-D-galactopyranosyl-D-glucose), UDP-Gal, UDP-Glc, UDP-D-[6-3H]glucose,
ampicillin, ammonium sulfate, 2-mercaptoethanol, Folin and Ciocalteu's
phenol reagent, and DOWEX 1 × 8 anion exchange resin were
obtained from Sigma. D-Ribose and 2-hydroxyethyl disulfide were from Aldrich. Guanidine hydrochloride, sodium chloride, and ScintiVerse BD were from Fisher. Low range protein standards was from
Bio-Rad. High and low molecular weight gel filtration calibration kits
and UDP-D-[6-3H]galactose were from Amersham
Pharmacia Biotech. All other chemicals were obtained in reagent grade
from commercially available sources.
Bacterial Strains and Plasmids--
Escherichia coli
strain K-12 (substrain MG1655) was from ATCC (ATCC catalog no.
47076). Plasmid vector pET15b and E. coli competent cell
BL21(DE3) [F
ompT
hsdSB(rB
mB
) gal dcm
(DE3)] were from Novagen Inc. (Madison, WI). Plasmid pET15b-
1,3GalT
was constructed as described previously (19). E. coli
competent cell DH5
(lacZ
M15 hsdR recA) was from Life Technologies, Inc.
Construction of Plasmids pET15b-f1 and
pET15b-f2--
Chromosomal DNA of E. coli strain
K-12 was purified using the QIAamp tissue kit. All of the polymerase
chain reactions were performed in a total 50-µl reaction volume
containing 5 µl (0.2 µg) of template DNA, a 1 µM
concentration of each of two corresponding primers, MgCl2
(2.5 mM), 5 µl of 10× buffer B (100 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.3, at 25 °C, 500 mM KCl),
1 mM dNTPs, and 2.5 units of Taq polymerase. The
reaction mixture was covered with 50 µl of mineral oil and subjected
to 30 cycles of amplification with an annealing temperature of 55 °C
in a Thermolyne Amplitron I thermal cycler (Barnstead Thermolyne Corp.,
Dubque, IA). Restriction digestions and DNA ligations were performed as
directed by the enzyme manufacturers. The resulting plasmids were
transformed into E. coli cloning strain DH5
and then
expression strain BL21 (DE3). Selected clones were characterized by
restriction mapping and DNA sequencing. The strategy for constructing
plasmids for fusion enzymes is described in "Results."
Overexpression and Purification of the Fusion Enzymes--
The
expression and purification of the fusion enzymes from the cell lysate
were as described before (19). Briefly, the overexpression of the
enzymes was induced by 0.4 mM
isopropyl-1-thio-
-D-galactopyranoside for 3 h at
37 °C in a C25 incubator shaker (New Brunswick Scientific Co., Inc.,
Edison, NJ). The cell lysate and inclusion bodies were separated by
centrifugation at 12,000 rpm for 20 min.
From cell lysate, the active enzymes were purified using a Ni2+-NTA-agarose affinity column. After elution, the fractions containing the purified enzyme (detected by UV-visible spectrometry) were combined, and ammonium sulfate was slowly added with stirring to 80% saturation. The suspension was kept at 4 °C for an additional 30 min and then centrifuged. The pellet was dissolved in 20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.9, and applied to a Superdex 200 preparation FPLC column preequilibrated with Tris-HCl buffer (50 mM, pH 8.0) containing 2-mercaptoethanol (10 mM), glycerol (10%), and NaCl (0.25 M). The column was then eluted with the same buffer, and fractions containing fusion protein activity were pooled and concentrated in a Centricon 3 concentrator (Millipore Corp., Bedford, MA).
To obtain the active fusion proteins from the inclusion bodies, the purification and refolding procedures were carried out as described in Ref. 25 except that a calculated E280 nm0.1% value of 1.6 (26) was used for the fusion enzymes for the determination of enzyme concentration.
SDS-PAGE-- SDS-PAGE was performed in a 10% gel in a Mini Protein III cell gel electrophoresis unit (Bio-Rad) at DC 200 V. High range (40-212 kDa) SDS-PAGE standards (Promega) were used as molecular weight standards, and the gel was stained with Coomassie Blue.
Assay for Fusion Enzymes-- Enzyme assays for fusion proteins were performed at 37 °C for 30 min in a final volume of 100 µl containing Tris-HCl (10 mM, pH 7.0), MnCl2 (10 mM), bovine serum albumin (0.1%), UDP-D-[6-3H]galactose (0.3 mM) or UDP-D-[6-3H]glucose (final specific activity of 1000 cpm/nmol), fusion enzyme (6.3 pmol), and acceptor (50 mM, lactose or lactose derivatives). Acceptor was omitted for blank. The reaction was stopped by adding 100 µl of ice-cold EDTA (0.1 M). Dowex 1 × 8-200 chloride anion exchange resin was then added in a water suspension (0.8 ml, 1:1 (v/v)). After centrifugation, supernatant (0.5 ml) was collected in a 20-ml plastic vial, and ScintiVerse BD (5 ml) was added. The vial was vortexed thoroughly before the radioactivity of the mixture was counted in a liquid scintillation counter (Beckmann LS-3801 counter). One unit of fusion enzyme activity is defined as the amount of enzyme that catalyzes the transfer of 1 µmol of galactose from UDP-Glc to lactose/min at 37 °C.
Determination of Kinetic Parameters--
Kinetic parameters for
the coupled reaction (UDP-Glc
Gal
1,3Lac) were gained by assays
with UDP-[6-3H]Glc (0.3 mM) and varying
concentrations of lactose (7, 8, 10, 12.5, 17, 25, and 50 mM) at 37 °C for 30 min, in which the formation of the
product [6-3H]Gal
1,3Lac was measured by scintillation
counting. Kinetic parameters for the
1,3-galactosyltransferase
moiety (UDP-Gal
Gal
1,3Lac reaction) in f1 or f2 were
obtained by a modification of the standard assay for the transferase
(19), with UDP-[6-3H]Gal (0.3 mM) and varying
concentrations of lactose (7, 8, 10, 12.5, 17, 25, and 50 mM). Enzymatic activity of the epimerase moiety (UDP-Glc
UDP-Gal reaction) in the fusion enzymes was obtained with different
concentrations of UDP-[6-3H]Glc (1, 1.14, 1.4, 1.6, 2, 2.6, and 4 mM) at 24 °C for 5 min. After deactivating
the enzyme by heating at 100 °C for 10 min, the amount of
UDP-[6-3H]Gal formed by the epimerase was quantitatively
determined by using an excess amount of
1,3GalT to transfer all of
the UDP-[6-3H]Gal to [6-3H]Gal
1,3Lac.
This previously established
1,3GalT-coupled radioactivity assay was
proven to be a convenient method for the determination of the epimerase
activity (27). The concentrations of all enzymes were determined by the
Lowry method (28) and adjusted to 0.3 µM for fusion
enzymes f1 and f2 as well as for native GalE and
1,3GalT.
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Construction of pET15b-f1 and pET15b-f2--
The
bifunctional enzyme f1 was prepared by in-frame linking of the
galE gene downstream to the truncated
1,3GalT gene, whose translational stop signal has been removed, through an in-frame linker
(GGTGGAGGC) coding for three glycine residues. To obtain the plasmid
pET15b-f1, the plasmids pET15b-
1,3GalT (f1) encoding individual
1,3GalT and pET15b-galE (f1) encoding GalE were constructed first
(Fig. 2A). The gene for the
1,3GalT was amplified with two primers
1,3GalT-F-f1 (forward
primer, containing restriction site NdeI) and
1,3GalT-R-f1 (reverse primer, containing restriction sites
SpeI, SalI, and BamHI and the codons
of the three-glycine linker). NdeI and BamHI
restriction sites facilitated the insertion of the
1,3GalT gene into
the multiple restriction sites in vector pET15b, while SpeI
and SalI were for the introduction of the galE gene. Similarly, the galE gene was amplified by polymerase
chain reaction from the chromosomal DNA of E. coli strain
K-12 with primers galE-F-f1 (forward primer, containing NdeI
and SpeI restriction sites) and galE-R-f1 (reverse primer,
containing SalI and BamHI restriction sites).
Plasmids pET15b-
1,3GalT (f1) and pET15b-galE (f1) were obtained,
respectively, by the digestion with NdeI and BamHI and consequent ligation with the pET15b vector. After
confirmation by restriction mapping, both plasmids pET15b-
1,3GalT
(f1) and pET15b-galE (f1) were digested with SpeI and
SalI. The 6.7-kb digested fragment of pET15b-
1,3GalT (f1)
and the 1.1-kb fragment of pET15b-galE (f1) were purified and ligated
by T4 DNA ligase to form plasmid pET15b-f1.
|
Another way of fusing the
1,3GalT gene and galE gene
together was to join the structural gene of
1,3GalT to the 3'-end of the galE gene. In this case, the translational stop signal
of the galE gene was removed. A similar strategy was applied
to obtain plasmid pET15b-f2 for fusion protein f2 (Fig.
2B). The primers in the construction of fusion proteins are
listed in Table I. All of the plasmids
contained a T7 promoter, a T7 terminator, and an ampicillin-resistant
gene. The His6 tag fused to the N terminus of the fusion
proteins simplified the purification of enzymes by Ni2+-NTA
affinity chromatography. The expressions of both f1 and f2 were
under the control of the T7 lac promoter and induced
by the addition of
isopropyl-1-thio-
-D-galactopyranoside.
|
The plasmid pET15b-f1 or pET15b-f2 was transformed into E. coli cloning host DH5
, and positive recombinants were
transformed into E. coli expression host BL21 (DE3).
Selected colonies were confirmed by restriction mapping and DNA
sequencing. When pET15b-f1 was digested with NdeI and
BamHI, two fragments with sizes of 5.7 kb (pET15b vector)
and 2 kb (
1,3GalT gene plus galE) were observed in
agarose gel electrophoresis. When pET15b-f1 was digested with
SpeI and SalI, two fragments with sizes of 6.6 kb
(pET15b vector plus
1,3GalT gene) and 1100 bp (galE) were
observed (Fig. 3A). Similarly,
when pET15b-f2 was digested with NdeI and
BamHI, two fragments with sizes of 5.7 and 2 kb were shown.
If f2 was digested with SalI and BamHI,
two fragments with sizes of 6.8 and 900 bp (
1,3GalT gene) were shown
(Fig. 3B).
|
Expression and Purification of Fusion Enzymes--
Both fusion
proteins f1 and f2 were efficiently expressed in E. coli expression host BL21 (DE3) and appeared as predominant bands
corresponding to a molecular mass of 67 kDa, which were absent in the
BL21 (DE3) transformed with the pET15b vector plasmid only (Fig.
4). Under the expression conditions
(37 °C, 250 rpm, 0.4 mM
isopropyl-1-thio-
-D-galactopyranoside induction for
3 h), about 12 units of f1 and 10 units of f2 were obtained
from the cell lysate of 1 liter cell culture. A large percentage of the
fusion proteins were expressed as inclusion bodies. The efficient extraction with 6 M guanidine HCl and proper refolding
procedures retrieved 20 units of active enzymes from the inclusion
bodies expressed in 1 liter of bacterial culture for both f1 and
f2. Similarly to the refolding of recombinant
1,4-galactosyltransferase from the inclusion bodies overexpressed in
the same E. coli pET15b-expressing system (25), the attempt
at refolding using a buffer containing Tris-HCl (20 mM, pH
7.9), glycerol (10%), and dithiothreitol (1 mM) failed.
The successful refolding was achieved in the same buffer except that
the dithiothreitol was substituted by a redox system containing 10 mM 2-mercaptoethanol and 1 mM 2-hydroxyethyl disulfide. The necessity of a redox system for generating active enzymes indicated the importance of disulfide bond formation during refolding of the fusion proteins.
|
A better expression level was achieved by lowering the temperature to
30 °C and elongating the incubation time to 20 h after the
addition of isopropyl-1-thio-
-D-galactopyranoside.
However, as the case under the normal expression conditions (37 °C,
3 h), the amount of the proteins obtained from 1 liter of bacteria
culture for f1 remained similar to that for f2, as determined by
SDS-PAGE and the activity assay. These results indicated that the
relative location of the transferase and the epimerase in the fusion
enzymes was not critical for the expression level in the current
overexpression system.
Purification of the fusion proteins was achieved by a nickel affinity chromatography and a subsequent FPLC HL Superdex 200 (16/60) gel filtration chromatography. After the affinity chromatography, the fusion proteins were purified to about 90% purity. Further purification was achieved for both f1 and f2 by FPLC gel filtration chromatography, which gave a single peak containing fusion protein activity in FPLC elution and a clean single band of about 67 kDa in SDS-PAGE (Fig. 4).
Molecular Mass Determination-- The molecular weights of the fusion enzymes were estimated by gel filtration chromatography on a Superdex 200 column. Both hybrid enzymes eluted as single peaks corresponding to a molecular mass of 140 kDa, as determined by comparison with the protein standards performed under the same conditions. The molecular mass for either f1 or f2 determined by SDS-PAGE was estimated to 67 kDa (Fig. 4). The monomers of both fusion proteins have theoretical calculated molecular masses of 74 kDa. These results suggest that both f1 and f2 are homodimers with total molecular mass of about 140 kDa under native conditions.
Apparent Kinetic Parameters for the Fusion Enzymes--
The
measured kinetic parameters in Table II
reveal some properties of the fusion enzymes. First, the
kcat values of the
1,3GalT moieties (UDP-Gal
Gal
1,3Lac reaction) in f1 and f2 are similar to that of
the native
1,3GalT. However, the Km value of f1
for lactose (8.5 mM) is decreased to about a half of that of the native
1,3GalT (15 mM). Therefore, the catalytic
efficiency of the
1,3GalT moiety in f1 is higher
(kcat/Km = 0.053 s
1 mM
1)
compared with that of f2 or of the native
1,3GalT. It is
important to point out that the epimerase part of the fusion enzymes
participated in the conversion of UDP-Gal to UDP-Glc, which decreased
UDP-Gal concentration and slowed down the reaction, during the
measurement of the
1,3GalT activity for f1 and f2. Therefore,
the kinetic parameters shown in Table II are only approximate
determinations. Second, it is found that the catalytic efficiencies of
the epimerase moieties (UDP-Glc
UDP-Gal reaction) in f1 and
f2 are greatly reduced (~25-fold) in comparison with that of
the native GalE. Dissecting to individual parameters, the
kcat value of f1 is similar to that of the
native GalE, and the efficiency loss of the GalE in f2 mainly
comes from the poorer binding to UDP-Glc. For f2, the decrease
of the efficiency comes from both a lower kcat
and a higher Km. Third, when considering the overall
fusion enzyme activity in the coupled reaction (UDP-Glc
Gal
1,3Lac reaction), the catalytic efficiency of f1 is about 8 times
higher than that of f2. This is mainly due to the fact that f1
has a lower Km.
|
Proximity Effect--
UDP-Gal 4-epimerase catalyzes the
interconversion of UDP-Glc to UDP-Gal (Reaction 1).
1,3-galactosyltransferase catalyzes the addition of a galactose from
UDP-Gal to its acceptor lactose (Reaction 2). The fusion enzymes
contain both epimerase and transferase activities and will catalyze the
transformation of galactose from UDP-Glc (instead of from UDP-Gal) to
lactose (Reaction 3). The net result is the change of donor requirement
of
1,3GalT from UDP-Gal to UDP-Glc, which decreases the cost for the
synthesis of
-Gal epitope and its derivatives more than
40-fold.
|
|
|
|
1,3-galactosyltransferase active sites in the fusion proteins
compared with that of the two-enzyme system.
|
Acceptor Specificity--
The natural acceptor for native
1,3-galactosyltransferase is N-acetyllactosamine. The
recombinant
1,3-galactosyltransferase was shown to be able to accept
a wide range of substrates including lactose and galactose derivatives
but not glucose derivatives (29). In order to determine whether the
acceptor specificity of the
1,3-galactosyltransferase had been
changed after the fusion with epimerase, acceptor specificities were
measured for fusion protein f2. Selected monosaccharides and
disaccharides were used as the acceptors, and either UDP-Gal or UDP-Glc
was used as the sugar nucleotide donor for the
1,3GalT activity and
the overall coupled reaction.
As shown in Table III, the acceptor
specificity of the
1,3-galactosyltransferase moiety (UDP-Gal
Gal
1,3Lac reaction) in f2 and that of the overall fusion
enzyme f2 (UDP-Glc
Gal
1,3Lac reaction) are similar to
that obtained for the individual recombinant
1,3-galactosyltransferase. For example, lactose derivatives are acceptors for the hybrid protein f2 and the
1,3-galactosyltransferase moiety in f2 with the activities
corresponding to the substitution of aglycones as N3 > OH > SPh. The presence of axial configuration of hydroxyl group
at the C-4 position of the Gal residue is important. Lactose and
galactose derivatives are acceptors; however, glucose derivatives are
not accepted by the enzyme. As in the case of the recombinant
1,3GalT,
- or
-linkage of the Gal terminus at the nonreducing
end was confirmed to be an important but not crucial factor for
f2. All of the Gal
-linked compounds (entries 1-4, 6, 7) are
much better acceptors than the Gal
-linked compounds (entries 5, 8).
|
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Full-length bovine
1,3-galactosyltransferase is a type II
membrane protein with a short N-terminal cytosolic domain, a
transmembrane domain, a stem region, and a C-terminal catalytic domain
(30). The native
1,3-galactosyltransferase is a monomer with a
molecular mass of 43 kDa (31). We reported previously a high yield
expression of a truncated (the first 79 N-terminal amino acid residues
were deleted) recombinant bovine
1,3-galactosyltransferase (19). FPLC gel filtration analysis and SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis data indicate that the recombinant
1,3-galactosyltransferase is a monomer.
UDP-Gal 4-epimerase is one of the key enzymes of the Leloir pathway for
galactose metabolism (32). The epimerase from E. coli is a
homodimer with an overall molecular mass of 79 kDa (33). The epimerase
was cloned from E. coli K-12 into pET15b expression vector
(27). FPLC gel filtration and SDS-PAGE data indicate that the
recombinant epimerase is a homodimer. It is interesting to know that
both fusion proteins f1 and f2 have dimeric configurations as
that for the native epimerase. The relative position of the transferase
and the epimerase does not alter this property. Also, the
His6 tag at the N terminus of protein does not prevent
dimerization. Since the recombinant
1,3GalT is a monomer, the
recombinant epimerase is a homodimer, it is reasonable to assume that,
the interactions between the two subunits of the fusion proteins result
from the interactions of the epimerase moieties in the fusion enzymes
(Fig. 6). The same conclusion was made by
Bulow and Mosbach (34) that a dimeric hybrid polypeptide
-
-
was usually obtained by the fusion of a dimeric protein (
) with a
monomeric one (
).
|
A previous report about a fusion protein composed of UDP-Gal
4-epimerase and galactose-1-phosphate uridylyltransferase (GalT) with
an intervening Ala3 linker was shown to exist in three
forms: a monomer, dimer, or tetramer (20). Another fusion protein of
-galactosidase and galactose dehydrogenase was also shown to exist
as two major forms, consisting of four or six subunits, as well as
other forms (21). Unlike these reports, due to the monomeric nature of
the
1,3GalT, both fusion proteins f1 and f2 in the present
study exist as homodimers.
It was reported that each subunit of the dimeric epimerase contained one irreversibly, noncovalently bound NAD+ (33), and no additional NAD+ was required for the epimerase-catalyzed reaction (32). This is also the case for the fusion enzymes. No external NAD+ is necessary for either the coupled reaction or the activity of the epimerase moiety in the fusion enzymes. This indicates that NAD+ is also tightly bound to the epimerase during the expression of fusion proteins in E. coli.
Our kinetic studies indicate that the fusion proteins have kinetic
advantages over the system of individual enzymes for the overall
coupled reaction. Significantly, the reaction rates in producing
Gal
1,3Lac from UDP-Glc and lactose are increased 4- and 1.5-fold by
f1 and f2, respectively, in comparison with the native enzymes.
This result can be explained by the substrate channeling effect (21),
indicating that the UDP-Gal produced by the epimerase is captured
faster by the transferase moiety in either f1 or f2 than that in
the system of native enzymes. Furthermore, the higher activity of f1
over f2 suggests that the active sites for the epimerase and
1,3-galactosyltransferase part are in a more optimal configuration
in f1.
It is noticed that the overall fusion enzyme activities (UDP-Glc
Gal
1,3Lac reaction) are higher than the activity of the corresponding transferase moieties (UDP-Gal
Gal
1,3Lac reaction) in both f1 and f2. This provided us with an insight into the
mechanism of
1,3-galactosyltransferase. The steady state kinetic
properties of
1,3-galactosyltransferase indicate a sequential
mechanism in which metal cofactor, donor, and acceptor bind enzyme
prior to catalysis. The low level of UDP-Gal hydrolase activity found in
1,3-galactosyltransferase excluded the possibility of an ordered sequential mechanism with binding of acceptor prior to donor. Previous
studies were not able to determine whether an ordered mechanism with
the binding of donor prior to acceptor or a random mechanism applies
for
1,3-galactosyltransferase. Our results on the kinetic parameters
of coupled reaction and the native transferase reaction in both fusion
enzymes suggest that a random mechanism should be a more plausible
explanation. For instance, if
1,3-galactosyltransferase obeys an
ordered mechanism with the binding of donor prior to acceptor, then in
the absence of UDP-Gal (as in the coupled reaction), UDP-Glc has to be
captured by the epimerase and be converted to UDP-Gal prior to the
function of transferase. Opposite to the results we obtained, the
initial rate in the coupled reaction should be lower than that in the
activity assay for the
1,3-galactosyltransferase moieties in fusion
enzymes, in which UDP-Gal is present and able to be captured and
utilized by the transferase right away.
Beside N-acetyllactosamine, lactose and lactose derivatives
are found to be good acceptors for the recombinant
1,3-galactosyltransferase. Our results indicate that the in-frame
fusing with epimerase does not change the acceptor specificity of the
transferase. This suggests that without changing many important
properties of individual native enzymes, fusing two enzymes together
has the advantages of simplicity, economy, and efficiency. In our
laboratory, the fusion enzymes f1 and f2 have been successfully
applied in the synthesis of
-Gal epitope and its derivatives (35,
36). This novel approach reduces the cost for the synthesis of
oligosaccharide by over 40-fold and provides an easy and economic
access to a wide spectrum of
-galactosyl epitopes and their
derivatives to support the continuous studies on xenotransplantation as
well as other pharmaceutical research (37, 38). The methodology can
also be applied for other galactosyltransferases that require UDP-Gal
as the donor, such as
1,4-galactosyltransferase,
1,6-galactosyltransferase,
1,4-galactosyltransferase,
1,3-galactosyltransferase, human blood type B galactosyltransferase,
etc. From a broader point of view, depending on which sugar nucleotide
is the most economical source, the fusion of a glycosyltransferase and
an epimerase can change a required, but more expensive, sugar
nucleotide to a less expensive one. For instance, broader application
of such an approach may include the combination of a variety of
glycosyltransferases with different epimerases, such as
N-acetylgalactosaminyltransferase and
UDP-N-acetylglucosamine 4-epimerase,
galactosaminyltransferase and UDP-N-glucosamine 4-epimerase,
or galacturonosyltransferase and UDP-glucuronate
4-epimerase.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant AI44040.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.
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 313-993-6759;
Fax: 313-577-2554; E-mail: pwang@chem.wayne.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, July 25, 2000, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M004005200
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviations used are:
-Gal, Gal
1,3Gal
-R-terminated oligosaccharide, glycopeptide,
or glycolipid;
-Gal trisaccharide, Gal
1,3Gal
1,4GlcOH;
1, 3GalT,
1,3-galactosyltransferase;
GalE, uridine
diphosphogalactose 4-epimerase;
PAGE, polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis;
NTA, nitrilotriacetic acid;
bp, base pairs;
kb, kilobase pair(s);
FPLC, fast protein liquid chromatography.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Miller, D. J., Macek, M. B., and Shur, B. D. (1992) Nature 357, 589-593 |
| 2. | Bayna, E. M., Shaper, J. H., and Shur, B. D. (1988) Cell 53, 145-157 |
| 3. | Parker, W., Saadi, S., Lin, S. S., Holzknecht, Z. E., Bustos, M., and Platt, J. L. (1996) Immunol. Today 17, 373-378 |
| 4. | Good, A. H., Cooper, D. K. C., Malcolm, A. J., Ippolito, R. M., Koren, E., Neethling, F. A., Ye, Y., Zuhidi, N., and Lamontagne, L. R. (1992) Transplant. Proc. 24, 559-562 |
| 5. | Sandrin, M. S., Vaughan, H. A., Dabkowski, P. L., and McKenzie, I. F. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 11391-11395 |
| 6. | Galili, U., and Swanson, K. (1991) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 88, 7401-7404 |
| 7. | Joziasse, D. H., Shaper, J. H., Van den Eijnden, D. H., Van Tunen, A. J., and Shaper, N. L. (1989) J. Biol. Chem. 264, 14290-14297 |
| 8. | Galili, U., Anaraki, F., Thall, A., Hill-Blank, C., and Radic, M. (1993) Blood 82, 2485-2493 |
| 9. | Chen, X., Andreana, P., and Wang, P. G. (1999) Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 3, 650-658 |
| 10. | Simon, P., Neethling, F. A., Taniguchi, S., Good, P. L., Zopf, D., Hancock, W. W., and Cooper, D. K. C. (1998) Transplantation 65, 346-353 |
| 11. | Koike, K., Sugimoto, M., Sato, S., Ito, Y., Nakahara, Y., and Ogawa, T. (1987) Carbohydr. Res. 163, 189-208 |
| 12. | Matsuzaki, Y., Ito, Y., Nakahara, Y., and Ogawa, T. (1993) Tetrahedron Lett. 34, 1061-1064 |
| 13. | Reddy, G. V., Jain, R. K., Bhatti, B. S., and Matta, K. L. (1994) Carbohydr. Res. 263, 67-77 |
| 14. | Beyer, A. T., Sadler, J. E., Rearick, J. I., Paulson, J. C., and Hill, R. L. (1981) Adv. Enzymol. 52, 24-175 |
| 15. | Wong, C.-H., Haynie, S. L., and Whitesides, G. M. (1982) J. Org. Chem. 47, 5416-5418 |
| 16. | Wong, C.-H., Wang, R., and Ichikawa, Y. (1992) J. Org. Chem. 57, 4343-4344 |
| 17. | Auge, C., Mathieu, C., and Merienne, C. (1986) Carbohydr. Res. 151, 147-156 |
| 18. | Thiem, J., and Wiemann, T. (1992) Synthesis (Stuttgart) 1-2, 141-145 |
| 19. | Fang, J. W., Li, J., Chen, X., Zhang, Y. N., Wang, J. Q., Guo, Z. M., Zhang, W., Yu, L. B., Brew, K., and Wang, P. G. (1998) J. Am. Chem. Soc. 120, 6635-6638 |
| 20. | Tamada, Y., Swanson, B. A., Arabshahi, A., and Frey, P. A. (1994) Bioconjugate Chem. 5, 660-665 |
| 21. | Ljungcranyz, P., Carlsson, H., Mansson, M. O., Buckel, P., Mosbach, K., and Bulow, L. (1989) Biochemistry 28, 8786-8792 |
| 22. | Saxena, I. D., brown, R. M., Fevre, M., Geremia, R. A., and Henrissat, B. (1995) J. Bacteriol. 177, 1419-1424 |
| 23. | Lougheed, B., Ly, H. D., Wakarchuk, W. W., and Withers, S. G. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 37717-37722 |
| 24. | Kapitonow, D., and Yu, R. K. (1999) Glycobiology 9, 961-978 |
| 25. | Zhang, Y. N., Malinovskii, V. A., Fiedler, T. J., and Brew, K. (1999) Glycobiology 9, 815-822 |
| 26. | Mach, H., Middaugh, C. R., and Lewis, R. V. (1992) Anal. Biochem. 200, 74-80 |
| 27. | Chen, X., Kowal, P., Hamad, S., Fan, H. N., and Wang, P. G. (1999) Biotech. Lett. 21, 1131-1135 |
| 28. | Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. L., and Randall, R. J. (1951) J. Biol. Chem. 193, 265-275 |
| 29. | Chen, X., Zhang, W., Wang, J. Q., Fang, J. W., and Wang, P. G. (2000) Biotech. Prog. 16, 595-599 |
| 30. | Blanken, W. M., and Van den Eijnden, D. H. (1985) J. Biol. Chem. 260, 12927-12934 |
| 31. | Wilson, D. B., and Hogness, D. S. (1964) J. Biol. Chem. 239, 2469-2481 |
| 32. | Burke, J. R., and Frey, P. A. (1993) Biochemistry 32, 13220-13230 |
| 33. | Thoden, J. B., Frey, P. A., and Holden, H. M. (1996) Biochemistry 35, 5137-5144 |
| 34. | Bulow, L., and Mosbach, K. (1991) Trends Biotechnol. 9, 226-231 |
| 35. | Fang, J. W., Chen, X., Zhang, W., Wang, J., Andreana, P. R., and Wang, P. G. (1999) J. Org. Chem. 64, 4089-4094 |
| 36. | Wang, J. Q., Chen, X., Zhang, W., Zacharek, S., Chen, Y. S., and Wang, P. G. (1999) J. Am. Chem. Soc. 121, 8174-8181 |
| 37. | Zhang, W., Xie, W. H., Wang, J. Q., Chen, X., Fang, J. W., Chen, Y. S., Li, J., Yu, L. B., Chen, D. P., and Wang, P. G. (1999) Curr. Org. Chem. 3, 241-267 |
| 38. | Janczuk, A., Li, J., Zhang, W., Chen, X., Chen, Y. S., Fang, J. W., Wang, J. Q., and Wang, P. G. (1999) Curr. Med. Chem. 6, 155-164 |
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
P. Bobrowicz, R. C. Davidson, H. Li, T. I. Potgieter, J. H. Nett, S. R. Hamilton, T. A. Stadheim, R. G. Miele, B. Bobrowicz, T. Mitchell, et al. Engineering of an artificial glycosylation pathway blocked in core oligosaccharide assembly in the yeast Pichia pastoris: production of complex humanized glycoproteins with terminal galactose Glycobiology, September 1, 2004; 14(9): 757 - 766. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Z. Liu, Y. Lu, J. Zhang, K. Pardee, and P. G. Wang P1 Trisaccharide (Gal{alpha}1,4Gal{beta}1,4GlcNAc) Synthesis by Enzyme Glycosylation Reactions Using Recombinant Escherichia coli Appl. Envir. Microbiol., April 1, 2003; 69(4): 2110 - 2115. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Li, T.-Y. Yen, M. L. Allende, R. K. Joshi, J. Cai, W. M. Pierce, E. Jaskiewicz, D. S. Darling, B. A. Macher, and W. W. Young Jr. Disulfide Bonds of GM2 Synthase Homodimers. ANTIPARALLEL ORIENTATION OF THE CATALYTIC DOMAINS J. Biol. Chem., December 22, 2000; 275(52): 41476 - 41486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||