4.7 Article

Glyco-engineered cell line and computational docking studies reveals enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli CFA/I fimbriae bind to Lewis a glycans

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-29258-0

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Council [2013-6615, 2011-3435, 2014-3914]
  2. Swedish Strategic Foundation [SB12-0072]
  3. County Council of Vastra Gotaland (ALF)
  4. University of Gothenburg Center for Antibiotics Resistance Research
  5. Faculty of Science
  6. Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing [2016/34-30]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We have previously reported clinical data to suggest that colonization factor I (CFA/I) fimbriae of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) can bind to Lewis a (Le(a)), a glycan epitope ubiquitous in the small intestinal mucosa of young children (< 2 years of age), and individuals with a genetic mutation of FUT2. To further elucidate the physiological binding properties of this interaction, we engineered Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO-K1) cells to express Le(a) or Le(b) determinants on both N- and O-glycans. We used our glyco-engineered CHO-K1 cell lines to demonstrate that CfaB, the major subunit of ETEC CFA/I fimbriae, as well as four related ETEC fimbriae, bind more to our CHO-K1 cell-line expressing Le(a), compared to cells carrying Le(b) or the CHO-K1 wild-type glycan phenotype. Furthermore, using in-silico docking analysis, we predict up to three amino acids (Glu(25), Asn(27), Thr(29)) found in the immunoglobulin (Ig)-like groove region of CfaB of CFA/I and related fimbriae, could be important for the preferential and higher affinity binding of CFA/I fimbriae to the potentially structurally flexible Le(a) glycan. These findings may lead to a better molecular understanding of ETEC pathogenesis, aiding in the development of vaccines and/or anti-infection therapeutics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available