The assays were performed using GDP-Man as sub-strate; incubations were performed with extracts con-taining either of the Arabidopsis, Caenorhabditis or Drosophila enzymes alone or with
Trang 1pathways of Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila
melanogaster
Simone Rhomberg1, Christina Fuchsluger1, Dubravko Rendic´1, Katharina Paschinger1,
Verena Jantsch2, Paul Kosma1and Iain B H Wilson1
1 Department fu¨r Chemie, Universita¨t fu¨r Bodenkultur, Vienna, Austria
2 Abteilung fu¨r Chromosomenbiologie, Vienna Biocenter II, Austria
Fucose is a key component of many
oligosaccha-rides involved in recognition events and therefore
has roles in disease and development [1] For
instance, Notch, a protein involved in developmental
processes in animals, is modified with fucose
O-linked to the protein backbone [2], and a defect
in the relevant O-fucosyltransferase (POFUT1) is
lethal in mice [3], whereas the orthologous gene, nti,
is necessary for normal development of Drosophila
melanogaster [4,5] A second O-fucosyltransferase
(POFUT2) is also known, and RNAi in
Caenorhab-ditis elegans of the relevant gene, pad-2, results in severe body malformations [6] Less drastic are the effects of ablation of the FUT7 gene required for biosynthesis of certain fucose-containing selectin lig-ands; a lack of the encoded enzyme results in defi-cient leukocyte trafficking [7] On the other hand, certain fucosylated glycans are immunogenic and allergenic, an example of such a structure being the modification of the N-glycan core by a1,3-linked fucose [8] This feature is recognized by, e.g anti-(horseradish peroxidase), which is used to stain
Keywords
Caenorhabditis; Drosophila; GDP-fucose
biosynthesis; GDP-keto-6-deoxymannose 3,
5-epimerase ⁄ 4-reductase; GDP-mannose
dehydratase
Correspondence
I B H Wilson, Department fu¨r Chemie,
Universita¨t fu¨r Bodenkultur, Muthgasse 18,
A-1190 Vienna, Austria
Fax: +43 1 36006 6059
Tel: +43 1 36006 6541
E-mail: iain.wilson@boku.ac.at
Database
The nucleotide sequences of C elegans and
D melanogaster gmd and ger cDNA have
been submitted to the EMBL database
under accession numbers AM231683,
AM231684, AM231685, AM231686,
AM231687 and AM231688
(Received 30 November 2005, revised 17
February 2006, accepted 20 March 2006)
doi:10.1111/j.1742-4658.2006.05239.x
The deoxyhexose sugar fucose has an important fine-tuning role in regula-ting the functions of glycoconjugates in disease and development in mam-mals The two genetic model organisms Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila melanogaster also express a range of fucosylated glycans, and the nematode particularly has a number of novel forms For the synthesis
of such glycans, the formation of GDP-fucose, which is generated from GDP-mannose in three steps catalysed by two enzymes, is required By homology we have identified and cloned cDNAs encoding these two pro-teins, GDP-mannose dehydratase (GMD; EC 4.2.1.47) and GDP-keto-6-deoxymannose 3,5-epimerase⁄ 4-reductase (GER or FX protein; EC 1.1.1.271), from both Caenorhabditis and Drosophila Whereas the nema-tode has two genes encoding forms of GMD (gmd-1 and gmd-2) and one GER-encoding gene (ger-1), the insect has, like mammalian species, only one homologue of each (gmd and gmer) This compares to the presence of two forms of both enzymes in Arabidopsis thaliana All corresponding cDNAs from Caenorhabditis and Drosophila, as well as the previously uncharacterized Arabidopsis GER2, were separately expressed, and the encoded proteins found to have the predicted activity The biochemical characterization of these enzymes is complementary to strategies aimed at manipulating the expression of fucosylated glycans in these organisms
Abbreviations
GER, GDP-keto-6-deoxymannose 3,5-epimerase ⁄ 4-reductase; GMD, GDP-mannose dehydratase.
Trang 2neural tissue and cells in many invertebrates,
inclu-ding Caenorhabditis and Drosophila [9–11]
Not only have the relevant fucosyltransferases and
fucose-containing glycans been the object of study, but
also the proteins required for the biosynthesis and
transport of the fucose donor, GDP-Fuc, have been
examined This nucleotide sugar is generated de novo
from GDP-Man in three steps catalysed by two
cytoso-lic enzymes: GDP-mannose dehydratase (GMD; EC
4.2.1.47) and GDP-keto-6-deoxymannose
3,5-epi-merase⁄ 4-reductase (GER, otherwise known as
GDP-Fuc synthase; other synonyms include the FX protein
in man, the P35B tumour rejection antigen in mice, as
well as fcl or wcaG in bacteria and GMER in
Drosophila; EC 1.1.1.271) [12] In eukaryotes, GDP-Fuc
is then transported into the Golgi [13], the site of action
of, at least the majority of, the fucosyltransferases
To date, sequences encoding GMD and GER have
been cloned and expressed from man [14–16],
Arabid-opsis thaliana [17–19], Escherichia coli [20],
Helicobact-er pylori [21,22] and Paramecium bursaria Chlorella
virus 1 [23] Indeed Arabidopsis has two GMD genes,
one of which corresponds to the MUR1⁄ GMD2 gene,
a defect in which results in deficiencies in cell wall
bio-synthesis [24] GMD is also defective in the Chinese
hamster ovary Lec13 and murine lymphoma PLR1.3
mutant cell lines, and this absence results in resistance
to fucose-specific lectins [25,26] Mice defective in
GER suffer from postnatal failure to thrive and an
absence of leukocyte selectin ligand expression [27],
whereas mutant strains of both the intestinal symbiont
Bacteriodes and the nodulation symbiont
Sinorhizo-bium fredii unable to produce GDP-Fuc display
reduced colonization competitiveness in the presence
of wild-type strains [28,29] There also exists a
Dicytos-telium discoideum (slime mould) strain (HL250) with a
genetically undefined defect in the conversion of
GDP-Man into GDP-Fuc and a resultant reduced
germina-tion efficiency for older spores, suggesting that, as for
the aforementioned bacterial symbionts, the presence
of fucose may confer a selective advantage under
natural conditions [30] However, although early
stud-ies were taken to suggest that GMD may be defective
in patients with leukocyte adhesion deficiency II
(OMIM 266265) [31,32], it now appears to be accepted
that mutations in the GDP-Fuc transporter are the
reason for the observed reduction in fucosylation
[33,34] On the other hand, the high level of
fucosyla-tion in human hepatocellular carcinoma has been
cor-related, at least in part, with high expression of GER
and increased concentrations of GDP-fucose [35]
Considering that the enzymes involved in GDP-Fuc
biosynthesis in the two model invertebrates C elegans
and D melanogaster have not been studied to date, even though fucosylation appears to be important for their development [4–6], we sought to clone cDNAs predicted
to encode GMD and GER genes in these two organ-isms, using previously characterized A thaliana homo-logues as controls; indeed the encoded proteins were successfully expressed in bacteria and found, in concert,
to direct the synthesis of GDP-Fuc in vitro The two Drosophila enzymes GMD and GMER were also puri-fied; the GDP-Fuc product of these two enzymes was also characterized by NMR and by a functional assay
Results
Cloning and expression of Caenorhabditis and Drosophila GMD and GER cDNAs
Homologues of the human GMD protein were identified from Caenorhabditis and Drosophila, and the relevant cDNAs cloned Whereas Drosophila has, as previously determined in a theoretical study [36], one gmd gene (CG8890), Caenorhabditis has, like Arabidopsis [18], two gmd genes (gmd-1 and gmd-2 corresponding to the C53B4.7 and F56H6.5 Wormbase entries), which encode proteins that are 88% identical with each other (see Fig 1 for alignment) The Caenorhabditis gmd-1 gene is transcribed in two different forms resulting from use of different 5¢ exons (the second and smaller form, C53B4.7a, which is designated gmd-1a in this study); both 5¢-end gmd-1a EST clones in the databases contain
an SL1 spliced leader In the case of the second worm gene, encoding GMD-2, RT-PCR using a forward pri-mer containing the predicted start codon was unsuccess-ful, as was PCR using forward primers corresponding to the SL1 or SL2 spliced leaders and gmd-2-specific reverse primers Finally, gmd-2 was cloned in an incom-plete form starting with the second exon, which, how-ever, still contains the first region (Gly-Leu-Glu) conserved in comparison with the gmd-1 cDNAs
As for GMD, homologues of the human GER pro-tein were identified from Caenorhabditis and Droso-phila, and the relevant cDNAs cloned; we also cloned both Arabidopsis homologues The Drosophila homo-logue has already been named gmer (CG3495) [36], whereas the Caenorhabditis ger-1 corresponds to the R01H2.5 reading frame As for the GMD enzymes, alignments show a high degree of conservation between GER homologues (Fig 2)
Enzymatic activity of GMD and GER proteins All Arabidopsis, Caenorhabditis and Drosophila GMD and GER homologues were expressed using the
Trang 3pET30a system in the presence of kanamycin and
chlo-ramphenicol; in addition, a pCRT7-NT vector carrying
Caenorhabditis gmd-1 was also coexpressed with the
pET30a clone of Caenorhabditis ger-1 in the presence
of ampicillin, kanamycin and chloramphenicol Western blotting with an antibody to His showed for
Fig 1 Alignment of GMD sequences The following GMD protein sequences were aligned: C1 (C elegans GMD-1); C1a (C elegans GMD-1 alternatively spliced form, first 56 residues only); C2 (C elegans GMD-2); Dm (D melanogaster GMD); Hs (Homo sapiens GMD); Sj (Schisto-soma japonica GMD); Ec (E coli GMD); Pb (P bursaria Chlorella virus 1 GMD); A1 (A thaliana GMD1); A2 (A thaliana MUR1 ⁄ GMD2) Resi-dues conserved in comparison with the fly and worm sequences are highlighted, whereas key conserved resiResi-dues noted in the Discussion (GXXGXXG as well as the Ser ⁄ Thr residue and YXXXK motif catalytically important for SDR family members) are marked underneath with an asterisk.
Trang 4GMD homologues the expression of proteins of
50 kDa, whereas in the case of the different forms of
GER the proteins were 35 kDa (Fig 3) The
Caenor-habditis and Drosophila GMD and GER proteins were tested for activity in coupled enzyme assays The Ara-bidopsis GMD2 (MUR1) and GER1 proteins were also
Fig 2 Alignment of GER sequences The following GER protein sequences were aligned: Ce (C elegans GER-1); Dm (D melanogaster GMER); Hs (Homo sapiens GER ⁄ FX); Sj (Schistosoma japonica GMD); Ec (E coli GMD ⁄ wcaG); Pb (P bursaria Chlorella virus 1 GER); A1 (A thaliana GER1); A2 (A thaliana GER2) Residues conserved in comparison with the fly and worm sequences are highlighted, whereas key conserved residues noted in the Discussion (GXXGXXG as well as the Ser ⁄ Thr residue and YXXXK motif catalytically important for SDR family members) are marked underneath with an asterisk.
Fig 3 Western blots of expressed GMD and GER isoforms GMD and GER proteins from A thaliana (MUR1, GMD1, GER1 and GER2),
C elegans (GMD-1, GMD-1a, GMD-2, GER-1 and coexpressed GMD-1 and GER-1) and D melanogaster (GMD and GMER) were expressed
in E coli BL21(DE3)pLysS cells for 2 h, and the soluble fractions of the bacterial proteins (equal lysate equivalents) were subjected to SDS ⁄ PAGE and western blotting using a primary antibody to His The sizes of the molecular mass standards are shown in kDa.
Trang 5tested as positive controls, as these have been
previ-ously shown to be enzymatically active when expressed
in E coli [17,19]
The assays were performed using GDP-Man as
sub-strate; incubations were performed with extracts
con-taining either of the Arabidopsis, Caenorhabditis or
Drosophila enzymes alone or with both enzymes from
the various species together The incubations were then
analysed by RP-HPLC, using authentic GDP-Man
and GDP-Fuc as external standards Initially, 0.5 m
KH2PO4was used as eluent [37], but, analogous to the
use of ammonium formate buffers for the purification
of UDP-xylose [38], it was then decided to examine the
use of the formate buffer As the results with the two
buffers were comparable, all subsequent analyses were
performed with the volatile formate buffer
Further-more, it was not absolutely necessary to perform the
GMD reaction before boiling and then adding GER;
such a procedure, though, has been described for
assays with E coli K12 Gmd and WcaG [39]
When GMD⁄ GER ‘pairs’ of any one of the three
species were present, a component that was coeluted
with standard GDP-Fuc was produced (Fig 4) In the
case of the Arabidopsis MUR1 and GER1 enzymes, the
putative GDP-Fuc product was shown to be a donor
substrate in fucosyltransferase assays (data not shown)
GDP-Fuc synthesis was also observed when either the
ArabidopsisMUR1 or the Caenorhabditis GMD-1a
iso-form were incubated with Caenorhabditis GER-1 and
GDP-Man (data not shown) In the absence of any
GER enzyme, but in the presence of any GMD, a
broad peak of intermediate retention time was
observed, as shown for Caenorhabditis GMD-1a and
Drosophila GMD (Fig 4A,D); this presumably
corres-ponds to the previously observed ketone and hydrate
forms of GDP-4-keto-6-deoxymannose [40] No
inter-mediate product was formed in the absence of any
GMD enzyme, and no GDP-Fuc was formed in the
absence of either GMD or GER, nor with the empty
vector control, showing that the strain of E coli used
has no detectable GDP-Fuc synthesis system The
chro-matograms also indicate that the amount of remaining
intermediate product was generally low or nonexistent
compared with the amount of GDP-Fuc, even though
GDP-Man was still present, and that the concentration
of GDP-4-keto-6-deoxymannose produced in the
pres-ence of GMD isoforms alone was greater than the
con-version of GDP-Man into products in the presence of
both enzymes (e.g with Drosophila GMD alone the
conversion of GDP-Man into the intermediate was
80%, whereas in the presence of both enzymes the
conversion into GDP-Fuc was only 50%; compare
Fig 4A with 4C) This would indeed be compatible
with the feedback inhibition by GDP-Fuc previously shown for other forms of GMD also occurring to some extent with the fly and worm enzymes [14,39]
For the Caenorhabditis and Drosophila enzymes, expression at room temperature was necessary to detect activity: for the Drosophila enzymes, no activity was detected on expression at 37C, whereas for the Caenor-habditis enzymes, only minimal activity was found on expression at 16C GDP-Fuc synthesis on coexpres-sion of Caenorhabditis GMD-1 and GER-1 was margin-ally less efficient (12%) than synthesis in the presence of both separately expressed enzymes (15–20%) assayed under the same conditions; thus, there is no obvious requirement to coexpress GMD and GER This is unlike the situation with expression of the Arabidopsis MUR1
in yeast, as in this system MUR1 was susceptible to degradation when not coexpressed with GER1 [37]
Fig 4 Activity of expressed GMD and GER isoforms The soluble fractions of lysates (equal lysate equivalents) of bacteria expressing GMD and GER enzymes were incubated overnight with GDP-Man and subjected to RP-HPLC The chromatograms of the following combinations are shown: (A) Drosophila GMD alone; (B) Drosophila GMER alone; (C) Drosophila GMD and GMER; (D) Caenorhabditis GMD-1a; (E) Caenorhabditis GMD-1 and GER-1; (F) Caenorhabditis GMD-2 and GER-1; (G) Arabidopsis MUR1 (GMD2) and GER1; (H) Arabidopsis GMD1 and GER2 The elution positions of GDP-Man and GDP-Fuc standards are indicated In the experiments shown, the GMD and GER isoforms were expressed separately.
Trang 6In addition to using MUR1 and GER1 as controls,
we also examined the other Arabidopsis homologues
of these enzymes, respectively, GMD1 and GER2
Whereas GMD1 has been previously shown to be active
[18], GER2 was only identified in silico as a putative
epimerase-reductase [19] The assay data showed that,
as for MUR1 and GER1, incubations with both GMD1
and GER2 also resulted in synthesis of GDP-Fuc,
con-firming the activity of GER2 for the first time (Fig 4H)
Properties of GMD and GER proteins from
different species
Initially, the composition of the assay mixture used was
based on previously published procedures [14]
There-fore, to test the limits of the system, we performed
assays with the Arabidopsis enzymes in the absence of
one of each of the nonenzymatic components
Compar-able to previous reports, we found that the synthesis by
GER1 of GDP-Fuc from the intermediate product was
absolutely dependent on NADPH, whereas reducing
the NADPH concentration by half, or increasing it
twofold, had no influence on the yield of GDP-Fuc
Furthermore, reduced conversion of the intermediate
was observed in the absence of dithiothreitol On the
basis of these data, we did not alter the assay mixture
composition for the later assays However, to optimize
the preparation of GDP-Fuc in a ‘one-pot’ method, we
also examined the pH and temperature requirements
for its production from GDP-Man
The Drosophila enzymes, taken together, displayed a
relatively broad pH optimum (pH 5–8), resulting,
under the conditions used, in 50% conversion of
GDP-Man into GDP-Fuc Caenorhabditis GMD-1 and
GER showed, in combination, optimal activity at
pH 8–9 (15–20% conversion using the same amount
of soluble bacterial extract as for the Drosophila
enzymes); similarly, an optimum at pH 8 was reported
for the synthesis of GDP-Fuc by Aerobacter aerogenes
and CHO cell extracts [25,41], whereas both the
sepa-rately assayed GMD and GER from porcine thyroid
show optima at pH 7 [42,43] and recombinant forms
of human and E coli GMD have optima of pH 7.5–
8.0 [32,44] The recombinant E coli K-12 GER
enco-ded by the wcaG gene was most active in the range
pH 6–7 [45]
As regards temperature, the Drosophila enzymes
were most active at temperatures of 16–30C, whereas
the Caenorhabditis enzymes (specifically GMD-1 and
GER-1) displayed a temperature optimum of 23–37C
(Fig 5) Assays with recombinant GDP-mannose
dehydratases alone showed that both Caenorhabditis
GMD-1a and Drosophila GMD had temperature
optima 30 C, whereas Caenorhabditis GMD-2 was most active at 16–23C (data not shown)
Purification of Drosophila GMD and GMER
In the preceding studies, the identity of the GDP-Fuc product was based on HPLC retention time; thus, it was decided to purify the product of the fruitfly pro-teins for further analysis Thus Drosophila GMD and GMER were subjected to nickel-chelation chromato-graphy either separately or together and isolated after elution with 250 mm imidazole (Fig 6, upper panel) The dominant bands (35 kDa and 50 kDa, corres-ponding to GMER and GMD, respectively) eluted with the latter buffer reacted with an antibody to His (Fig 6, lower panel), and their identity was verified by MALDI-TOF tryptic peptide mapping Protein assays indicated that the yields of individually purified Drosophila GMD and GMER were 0.5 mg from a 50-mL culture; when purified together, the total pro-tein yield was 1 mg Under the conditions used, the yield of GDP-Fuc with the separately purified enzymes was comparable to that using enzymes purified together; it also appeared that, after purification, GMER was more stable than GMD (data not shown) Using the purified forms of Drosophila GMD and GMER, scaled-up incubations were performed, prepu-rified by passage over a small Lichroprep column and subjected to RP-HPLC to yield an estimated total of
1 mg GDP-Fuc (20% yield after purification) This material was lyophilized and used successfully as a fuc-osyltransferase substrate when an extract of Sf9 cells transfected with Drosophila core fucosyltransferase
120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Ara Ce Dm
Temperature [ºC]
Fig 5 Relative yield of GDP-Fuc with respect to incubation tem-perature Assays of Arabidopsis MUR1 and GER1, Drosophila GMD and GMER, and Caenorhabditis GMD-1 and GER-1 were performed
at different temperatures, and the relevant RP-HPLC peaks were integrated The data were then recalculated individually for each enzyme pair relative to the respective activity at 23 C.
Trang 7FucTA was used as an enzyme source as judged by the
conversion of the dabsyl-GnGnF6 glycopeptide
sub-strate into a species with an m⁄ z 146 higher (data not
shown) Furthermore, the compound was subjected to
NMR, which confirmed its identity as GDP-Fuc (Table 1), the data matching those reported for syn-thetic GDP-Fuc [46]
Developmental expression profile in Caenorhabditis
Considering the multiplicity of genes and transcripts encoding GDP-mannose dehydratase in C elegans, semi-normalized RT-PCR was performed using cDNA from L1 larvae, L2⁄ 3 larvae (combined as these are difficult to distinguish), L4 larvae and adults The results (Fig 7) would suggest minor variations in the concentrations of the gmd-2 and ger-1 transcripts dur-ing worm development A peak of gmd-1 transcription may be occurring in the L2⁄ 3 stage, but transcripts of this form are seemingly under-represented in adults
Fig 6 Purification of recombinant Drosophila GMD and GMER.
GMD and GMER expressed separately were subjected to nickel
chelation chromatography; fractions marked ‘co’ are from the
purif-ication of GMD and GMER from mixed lysates Fractions (wash,
20 m M imidazole and 250 m M imidazole) were then
electrophor-esed and stained using Coomassie blue (upper panel) or transferred
to nitrocellulose and probed with an antibody to His (lower panel).
In the case of copurification, some GMER, but no GMD, was
elut-ed with 20 m M imidazole (lane 4) The sizes of the molecular mass
standards are shown in kDa.
Table 1 NMR data of GDP-b- L -fucose prepared using recombinant Drosophila enzymes ND, not determined Further signals at 3.76 p.p.m.
in the proton spectrum and at 60.16 in the carbon spectrum are from residual Tris buffer.
J (Hz) J PP 20.5, J HP 8.0
13
Fig 7 Development RT-PCR profile for GMD and GER transcripts
in Caenorhabditis RT-PCR was performed using RNA isolated from L1, L2 ⁄ L3, L4 and adult C elegans using primers specific for gmd-1, gmd-1a (alternatively spliced form of GMD-1), gmd-2 and ger-1 The amounts of cDNA used in the PCRs were normalized on the basis of the intensity of actin transcripts.
Trang 8On the other hand, the alternatively spliced gmd-1a
transcript is present at its lowest concentrations in L1
larvae and is relatively more abundant in the later
sta-ges The expression of the GDP-Fuc biosynthesizing
enzymes throughout development is compatible with
the rich variety of fucosylated N-glycans and
O-gly-cans in this species [47,48]
Discussion
GDP-fucose was first found in 1958 [49], and its
bio-synthesis is a process present in many life forms, from
bacteria through to plants, invertebrates and
verte-brates There appear to be two basic strategies for the
formation of GDP-Fuc: either the route through
GDP-Man, using GMD and GER enzymes, or the
‘salvage’ pathway through fucose 1-phosphate The
first route was first found in A aerogenes and shown
to be dependent on the presence of NADPH (then
called TPNH) [50] GMD was first isolated from
Phaseolus vulgaris [51], whereas GER was initially
purified from porcine thyroid [43] The presence of a
fucose salvage pathway was first suggested in 1964
because of the ability to radiolabel glycoproteins after
administration of [14C]Fuc to rats [52] and confirmed
by detection of l-fucose kinase and GDP-l-Fuc
pyro-phosphorylase [53,54] in porcine liver More recent
studies indicate that there are varying levels of
fuco-kinase activity in different rat tissues [55]
Some organisms have both pathways, as shown by
biochemical work; initially both routes were
consid-ered to be only present in mammals, but now the
two pathways have been demonstrated in Bacteriodes
[28] The genomic ‘revolution’, however, means that
further phylogenetic analyses can now be performed
By this approach, it can be seen that the
GMD⁄ GER route is probably present in all
organ-isms known to produce fucose-containing
glycoconju-gates; on the other hand, as noted previously,
Drosophila has no genetically detectable ‘salvage’
pathway Plants and mammals do have relevant
homologues, although the putative plant ‘salvage’
pathway is seemingly closer to that of Bacteriodes,
as plant genomes contain homologues of the fkp
gene from Bacteriodes, a gene that encodes a protein
with both fucokinase and GDP-Fuc phosphorylase
activities [28] In mammals, however, these activities
are encoded by separate genes Caenorhabditis
appears, on the other hand, only to have an obvious
fucokinase homologue (C26D10.4) In addition,
GMD is also required for the de novo synthesis of
GDP-Rha in Ps aeruginosa, as the product of
GMD, GDP-4-keto-6-deoxy-d-mannose, can also be
acted on by a reductase [56], whereas the GMD of the P bursaria Chlorella virus 1 can directly convert GDP-4-keto-6-deoxy-d-mannose into GDP-Rha [23] Thus it is conceivable that GMD is more ancient than GER
The GMD and GER sequences across the various kingdoms of life are remarkably highly conserved; both proteins are members of the short chain dehy-drogenase (SDR) family and display homologies to other enzymes of sugar nucleotide metabolism, such as dTDP-glucose dehydrogenase, UDP-Gal epimerase and UDP-GlcA decarboxylase Phylogenetic trees (not shown) suggest that the plant enzymes are closer to the bacterial, than to the animal, ones; regardless of this, however, residues found by crystallographic or mutagenesis studies to be important for binding or catalysis are identical across all sequences A Ross-mann motif (Gly-Xaa-Xaa-Gly-Xaa-Xaa-Gly), which
is a common feature of nucleotide-binding proteins, is, for instance, conserved in all the GMD and GER sequences from worm and fly Furthermore, the resi-dues corresponding to Gln39, Asp40, Ser117 and Arg220 in MUR1 3D structure, which form hydrogen bonds with the NADPH cofactor, and the residues that correspond to Asn214, Lys228, Arg253, Arg314 and Glu317 of the MUR1 sequence and form hydro-gen bonds with the GDP moiety [57] are retained in the worm and fly GMD enzymes The Ser⁄ Thr residue and Tyr-Xaa-Xaa-Xaa-Lys motif catalytically import-ant for SDR family members are also conserved in all sequences If the corresponding Ser⁄ Thr, Tyr and Lys residues of the E coli GMD or GER are separately subjected to site-directed mutagenesis, then either activity is abolished or the kcat drastically decreased [58,59]
It is also noteworthy that some organisms have mul-tiple GMD or GER genes In particular, Arabidopsis has two proven GMD enzymes (GMD1 and MUR1; At5g66280 and At3g51160), displaying differential expression [18], as well as the previously proven GER1 and now, by us, proven GER2 (respectively, At1g73250 and At1g17890): in both cases the genes are in, or at least close to, regions that have putatively been duplica-ted during the evolution of Arabidopsis [60,61] Further-more, the presence of duplicated genes means that knocking-out one GMD, i.e MUR1, does not totally diminish the fucose content of Arabidopsis glycoconju-gates [24] Any strategy to abolish all fucosylation in plants is possibly also complicated by the presence of the aforementioned fkp homologue On the other hand, Drosophila has only one GMD and one GER homo-logue; indeed, a GMD mutation has been isolated and
is lethal at the third larval stage [62], commensurate
Trang 9with the putative key role for peptide
O-fucosyl-transferases in development and the probable lack of
any salvage pathway
C elegans, however, is somewhere between these
extremes, as it has two GMD enzymes (although the
related nematode Caenorhabditis briggsae appears to
have only one gmd gene, suggesting that the duplication
of gmd genes is an evolutionarily relatively recent event),
whose activities were proven in the course of our studies,
but only one GER isoform Suggestive of functional
degeneracy are RNAi data on the two Caenorhabditis
GMD homologues: at least when performed
individu-ally, as part of a large-scale screen, RNAi of gmd-1,
gmd-2and ger-1 resulted in no obvious associated
lethal-ity However, in another large-scale RNAi screen with
the hypersensitive rrf-3 worm strain, various defects
were indeed reported upon knock-down of gmd-2 [63];
no data, however, on gmd-1 or gmd-1a were reported in
the study using rrf-3 worms, so neither the relative
importance of the two genes nor the biological
signifi-cance of the alternative splicing of gmd-1 can be
sur-mised at present Owing to the previous report as to the
effect of mutations in the C elegans POFUT2
homo-logue pad-2 [6], the Drosophila orthohomo-logue of which
modifies thrombospondin repeats [64], it is quite
prob-able that any effects of RNAi targeting of GDP-Fuc
biosynthesizing enzymes will be due to peptide
O-fuco-sylation defects There may also be tissue-specific
expression of the two gmd genes Apparently, gmd-1 is
expressed in body wall muscle and head neurons (For
summaries of the various RNAi and expression data,
see: http://www.wormbase.org/db/gene/gene?name¼
C53B4.7 for gmd-1, http://www.wormbase.org/db/gene/ gene?name¼ F56H6.5 for gmd-2 and http:// www.wormbase.org/db/gene/gene?name ¼ R01H2.5 for ger-1.) Our own developmental RT-PCR profile data would suggest that there is no major developmental regulation of the transcription of either GMD-encoding gene, although there appears to be a peak of gmd-1 and gmd-1a expression at the L2⁄ L3 stage; such results, however, are not incompatible with variation of expres-sion within tissues and may reflect a requirement for higher concentrations of GDP-Fuc at certain times or
in certain tissues during development (e.g for Notch signaling)
In summary, we have shown for the first time that the GMD and GER homologues of Caenorhabditis and Drosophila, as well as the Arabidopsis GER2, are indeed functional enzymes, which can work together to reconstitute GDP-Fuc synthesis in vitro Biochemical characterization of these enzymes lends confidence to any subsequent reverse genetic or phylogenetic studies
or in the use of conditional mutants and lays the foun-dation for future work on the role of fucose in the biology of these model organisms
Experimental procedures
Cloning of GMD and GER cDNAs
RNA was extracted from A thaliana (Columbia), C elegans (N2) or D melanogaster (Canton S) using Trizol reagent (Invitrogen, Paisley, UK) Two-step RT-PCR was performed using Superscript III reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen) and
Table 2 Primers used in this study.
AtGMD1 ⁄ 2 ⁄ EcoRI, CGGAATTCAAGGTCGTGCTGAGCTC (rev)
AtMUR1⁄ 2 ⁄ XhoI, ACCCTCGAGTCAAGGTTGCTGCTTAGC (rev)
AtGER1⁄ 2 ⁄ XhoI, ACCCTCGAGTTATCGGTTGCAAACATTCTT (rev)
AtGER2⁄ 2 ⁄ XhoI, CCGCTCGAGTTACTGCTTCTTCTGCACAA (rev)
CeGMD ⁄ 1 ⁄ BamHI, CGGGATCCAATGCCAACCGGCAAGTCTG (fwd),
or CeGMD1a ⁄ 1 ⁄ NcoI, CATGCCATGGCTGATCAAAATGCGAA (fwd) CeGMD1⁄ 2 ⁄ HindIII, CCCAAGCTTAAGCCATTGGATTGGACTTC (rev)
CeGMD2⁄ 1 ⁄ BamHI, CGGGATCCTAAGCCATTGGATCTGCC (rev)
CeGER ⁄ 2 ⁄ EcoRI, CGGAATTCTTATTTTCTAGCCGTCTCATAA (rev)
DmGMD⁄ 2 ⁄ XhoI, CCGCTCGAGTTAAGCGATTGGATTTTTCCT (rev)
DmGMER ⁄ 2 ⁄ XhoI, CCGCTCGAGTTACTTTCTAGCCTGGTCG (rev)
Trang 10Expand polymerase (Roche, Vienna, Austria) using the
pri-mer pairs listed in Table 2 The PCR fragments were cut and
ligated into either pET30a (Novagen, Merck Biosciences,
Darmstadt, Germany) or pCRT7-NT (Invitrogen) digested
with the relevant restriction enzyme(s) DNA sequencing was
performed using the BigDye kit (Applera, Norwalk, CT,
USA) In the case of the Caenorhabditis gmd-1 and ger-1 pET
clones, the second codon encodes alanine (respectively a
replacement codon or an additional one) in order to
accom-modate an NcoI site
Expression of GMD and GER proteins
Plasmids were used to transform BL21(DE3)pLysS Gold
cells (Stratagene, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), which were
grown overnight in 10 mL Luria–Bertani medium containing
kanamycin and chloramphenicol (also containing ampicillin
in the case of double transformation) In the case of trial
expression, 1 mL (or 2.5 mL for larger-scale cultures) was
taken from the overnight culture to inoculate 20 mL (or
50 mL) Luria–Bertani medium containing the relevant
anti-biotics After the A600had reached 0.6 at 37 C, small-scale
cultures were split, and to one half was added isopropyl
b-d-thiogalactoside to a concentration of 1 mm; in the case
of larger-scale cultures, isopropyl b-d-thiogalactoside was
added to the entire culture The growth was continued at
23C for up to three hours
Cells were resuspended in 500 lL (small-scale) or 5 mL
(large-scale) lysis buffer containing 50 mm Tris, 400 mm
NaCl, 100 mm KCl, 10% glycerol, 0.5% Triton X-100,
10 mm imidazole, pH 7.8, and lysed by performing repeated
freeze–thaw cycles, using alternately a methanol bath and a
42C water bath DNase I was added, and the lysates were
incubated for 10 min at 37C before centrifugation for
1 min (small-scale) or 20 min (large-scale) at 14 000 g,
4C The supernatant was taken for assays or, in the case
of large-scale cultures, purification For the presented data,
the cells were always grown and lysed under the same
con-ditions (i.e same initial cell density, temperature, time of
induction and concentration of isopropyl
b-d-thiogalacto-side) Aliquots of these lysates stored at )80 C still
dis-played activity after 1 year of storage
Purification by nickel-chelation chromatography
The supernatants from lysed cells were incubated with 2 mL
Ni⁄ nitrilotriacetate resin (Qiagen, Vienna, Austria) for at
least 1 h at 4C The lysate ⁄ resin mixture was poured into a
column at room temperature and washed twice with 1 mL
lysis buffer, before further washing twice with 4-mL aliquots
of a lysis buffer containing 20 mm imidazole Elution was
performed using four 0.5-mL aliquots of a lysis buffer
con-taining 250 mm imidazole All fractions were collected on ice
Protein assays were performed using the modified Lowry kit
(Sigma, Vienna, Austria)
Western blotting
Aliquots of the soluble fractions of lysed bacteria or of affinity chromatography fractions (20 lL) were precipitated with a fivefold excess of cold methanol and, after 1 h at )20 C, centrifuged (14 000 g, 5 min) After removal of residual methanol at 65C, the samples were resuspended
in Laemmli sample buffer (20 lL) and denatured at 95C for 5 min; 5 lL of these samples were subjected to SDS⁄ PAGE with subsequent blotting on to nitrocellulose Recombinant His-tagged forms of GMD and GER were then detected using antibody to His (HIS-1; Sigma; 1 : 3000 dilution) followed by anti-mouse IgG (Fc or c-specific) con-jugated with alkaline phosphatase (Sigma; 1 : 10 000 dilu-tion) and use of SigmaFAST BCIP⁄ NBT substrate
Assay of GMD and GER activity
To determine the enzymatic activity, aliquots of crude sup-ernatants of lysed cells or of purified proteins (2 lL) were typically incubated at room temperature in the presence
of 20 mm Tris⁄ 5 mm EDTA ⁄ 10 mm dithiothreitol ⁄ 1 mm GDP-mannose⁄ 5 mm NADPH ⁄ 1 mm NAD+
, pH 7.4 (final volume 10 lL) RP-HPLC was then performed using a Hypersil column with isocratic elution using 600 mm ammonium formate, pH 3.2 Peak integrations were used
to estimate the yield of either GDP-4-keto-6-deoxymannose (GMD assays) or GDP-Fuc (combined GMD⁄ GER assays)
NMR analysis
Approximately 1 mg of the HPLC-purified reaction product
of GDP-Man with purified Drosophila GMD and GMER was lyophilized twice and taken up in D2O before NMR analysis Spectra were recorded at 300 K at 300.13 MHz for1H, at 75.47 MHz for 13C, and at 121.49 MHz for 31P with a Bruker AVANCE 300 spectrometer equipped with a 5-mm QNP-probehead with z gradients Data acquisition and processing were performed with the standard xwinnmr software (Bruker BioSpin GmbH, Rheinstetten, Germany)
1
H-NMR spectra were referenced to 2,2-dimethyl-2-silapen-tane-5-sulfonic acid (d¼ 0), 13
C-NMR spectra were refer-enced externally to 1,4-dioxane (d¼ 67.40), and 31P-NMR spectra were referenced externally to H3PO4 (d¼ 0) HMQC and HMBC spectra were recorded in the phase-sensitive mode using TPPI and pulsed field gradients for coherence selection
Developmental transcript analysis
A total of 120 individual Caenorhabditis L1 larvae and
60 individuals of three other stages (L2⁄ L3 larvae, L4 larvae and adults) were picked; the RNA, extracted using