Literature DB >> 21342285

Antigen-binding specificity of anti-αGal reagents determined by solid-phase glycolipid-binding assays. A complete lack of αGal glycolipid reactivity in α1,3GalT-KO pig small intestine.

Mette Diswall1, Anki Gustafsson, Jan Holgersson, Mauro S Sandrin, Michael E Breimer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: αGal-specific lectins, monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies (Abs) are widely used in xenotransplantation research. Immunological assays such as immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry, Western blot and thin layer chromatography are often the only applicable characterization procedures when limited amount of tissue is available and biochemical characterization is impossible. Hence, detailed knowledge of the Ab/lectin carbohydrate-binding specificity is essential.
METHODS: The binding specificity of human blood group AB serum, three different affinity-purified human polyclonal anti-Gal Ab batches, and two anti-Gal mAb clones (TH5 and 15.101) as well as Griffonia simplicifolia isolectin B4 and Marasmius oreades agglutinin were examined for reactivity with glycolipid fractions isolated from human and pig (wild-type and α1,3GalT-KO) tissues using thin layer chromatogram and microtiter well binding assays.
RESULTS: All anti-Gal-specific reagents reacted with the pentaglycosylceramide Galα1,3nLc4, and several 6-12 sugar compounds in wild-type pig kidneys. However, their staining intensity with different αGal antigens varied considerably. Some, but not all, anti-Gal reagents cross-reacted with a pure iGb3 glycolipid reference compound. No reactivity with glycolipids isolated from α1,3GalT-KO pig small intestine or human tissues was found, confirming the specificity of the anti-Gal reagents in those tissues for α1,3Gal-epitopes produced by the α1,3GalT (GGTA1).
CONCLUSIONS: Different anti-Gal reagents vary in their carbohydrate epitope specificity. Mono-/polyclonal Abs and lectins have different carbohydrate epitope fine specificity toward pig glycolipids as well as purified Galα1,3nLc4, and iGb3. Despite the difference in αGal specificity, all reagents were completely non-reactive with glycolipids isolated from α1,3GalT-KO pig small intestine.
© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21342285     DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3089.2011.00623.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Xenotransplantation        ISSN: 0908-665X            Impact factor:   3.907


  6 in total

Review 1.  Immunological challenges and therapies in xenotransplantation.

Authors:  Marta Vadori; Emanuele Cozzi
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 6.915

2.  Complete absence of the αGal xenoantigen and isoglobotrihexosylceramide in α1,3galactosyltransferase knock-out pigs.

Authors:  Gisella L Puga Yung; Yunsen Li; Lubor Borsig; Anne-Laure Millard; Maria B Karpova; Dapeng Zhou; Jörg D Seebach
Journal:  Xenotransplantation       Date:  2012 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.907

3.  Close-up of the immunogenic α1,3-galactose epitope as defined by a monoclonal chimeric immunoglobulin E and human serum using saturation transfer difference (STD) NMR.

Authors:  Melanie Plum; Yvonne Michel; Katharina Wallach; Tim Raiber; Simon Blank; Frank I Bantleon; Andrea Diethers; Kerstin Greunke; Ingke Braren; Thomas Hackl; Bernd Meyer; Edzard Spillner
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2011-10-11       Impact factor: 5.157

4.  Lack of iGb3 and Isoglobo-Series Glycosphingolipids in Pig Organs Used for Xenotransplantation: Implications for Natural Killer T-Cell Biology.

Authors:  Fatima Tahiri; Yunsen Li; David Hawke; Luciane Ganiko; Igor Almeida; Steven Levery; Dapeng Zhou
Journal:  J Carbohydr Chem       Date:  2013-01-11       Impact factor: 1.667

Review 5.  Recent investigations into pig antigen and anti-pig antibody expression.

Authors:  Guerard W Byrne; Christopher G A McGregor; Michael E Breimer
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2015-08-22       Impact factor: 6.071

6.  Gal epitope expression and immunological properties in iGb3S deficient mice.

Authors:  Anliang Shao; Liming Xu; Xi Wu; Susu Liu; Yan Lu; Changfa Fan
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.