4.2 Article

The Effect of Glycosylation on the Antibody Recognition of a MUC2 Mucin Epitope

期刊

BIOPOLYMERS
卷 102, 期 5, 页码 390-395

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/bip.22526

关键词

MUC2 mucin; glycosylated peptides; antibody binding of epitope

资金

  1. Hungarian Research Fund [K104385]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24550194] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

MUC2 glycoprotein, produced by the epithelium of the colon and built up mainly of repeat units of (1)PTTTPITTTTTVTPTPTPTGTQT(23), can be overexpressed or underglycosylated in gastrointestinal diseases, e. g. in case of colon carcinoma. We have been studying the epitope structure of the MUC2 by focusing on the repeat unit with the mucin peptide specific MAb 996 monoclonal antibody. This antibody recognizes the (18)PTGTQ(22) sequence as minimal, and (16)PTPTGTQ(22) as optimal epitope within the underglycosylated glycoprotein. In this article, we aim to clarify the effect of glycosylation of the epitope on MAb 996 antibody binding including its correlation with the secondary structure of the modified peptides: glycosylation in the epitope core and in the flank. For this we have prepared the (16)PTPTGTQ(22) peptide glycosylated with N-acetylgalactoseamine (Tn antigen) in position 17, 19, 21, or on all three threonines. The MAb 996 antibody binding properties of the peptides were characterized in competitive ELISA experiments, and their solution secondary structure was studied by circular dichroism spectroscopy in water and in the ordered structure promoting trifluoroethanol. Our results show that glycosylation in position 19 (peptide (PTPT)-P-16(GalNAca) GTQ(22)) resulted in enhanced antibody recognition and significantly altered secondary structure, while glycosylation in position 21 completely demolished the binding. These findings could be useful in determining the nature of antigen-antibody interaction, and perhaps designing synthetic peptide vaccines for tumor therapy. (C) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据