Shu-Lun Tang1, Lucas B Linz2, Bryony C Bonning2, Nicola L B Pohl3. 1. Department of Chemistry, Hach Hall, Iowa State University , Ames, Iowa 50011, United States. 2. Department of Entomology, 339 Science II, Iowa State University , Ames, Iowa 50011, United States. 3. Department of Chemistry, Simon Hall, Indiana University , Bloomington, Indiana 47405, United States.
Abstract
Pea enation mosaic virus (PEMV)--a plant RNA virus transmitted exclusively by aphids--causes disease in multiple food crops. However, the aphid-virus interactions required for disease transmission are poorly understood. For virus transmission, PEMV binds to a heavily glycosylated receptor aminopeptidase N in the pea aphid gut and is transcytosed across the gut epithelium into the aphid body cavity prior to release in saliva as the aphid feeds. To investigate the role of glycans in PEMV-aphid interactions and explore the possibility of viral control through blocking a glycan interaction, we synthesized insect N-glycan terminal trimannosides by automated solution-phase synthesis. The route features a mannose building block with C-5 ester enforcing a β-linkage, which also provides a site for subsequent chain extension. The resulting insect N-glycan terminal trimannosides with fluorous tags were used in a fluorous microarray to analyze binding with fluorescein isothiocyanate-labeled PEMV; however, no specific binding between the insect glycan and PEMV was detected. To confirm these microarray results, we removed the fluorous tag from the trimannosides for isothermal titration calorimetry studies with unlabeled PEMV. The ITC studies confirmed the microarray results and suggested that this particular glycan-PEMV interaction is not involved in virus uptake and transport through the aphid.
Pea enation mosaic virus (n class="Species">PEMV)--a plant RNA virus transmitted exclusively by aphids--causes disease in multiple food crops. However, the aphid-virus interactions required for disease transmission are poorly understood. For virus transmission, PEMV binds to a heavily glycosylated receptor aminopeptidase N in the pea aphid gut and is transcytosed across the gut epithelium into the aphid body cavity prior to release in saliva as the aphid feeds. To investigate the role of glycans in PEMV-aphid interactions and explore the possibility of viral control through blocking a glycan interaction, we synthesized insect N-glycan terminal trimannosides by automated solution-phase synthesis. The route features a mannose building block with C-5 ester enforcing a β-linkage, which also provides a site for subsequent chain extension. The resulting insect N-glycan terminal trimannosides with fluorous tags were used in a fluorous microarray to analyze binding with fluorescein isothiocyanate-labeled PEMV; however, no specific binding between the insect glycan and PEMV was detected. To confirm these microarray results, we removed the fluorous tag from the trimannosides for isothermal titration calorimetry studies with unlabeled PEMV. The ITC studies confirmed the microarray results and suggested that this particular glycan-PEMV interaction is not involved in virus uptake and transport through the aphid.
Insect transmission
of plant viruses results in widespread crop
losses. The major insect vectors are aphids (Aphididae; Hemiptera),
who transmit nearly 50% of insect-borne plant viruses.[1] For aphids to persistently transmit luteovirids, such as
pea enation mosaic virus (n class="Species">PEMV), two events are necessary. First,
virions ingested with phloem sap bind a receptor for transcytosis
across the mid or hindgut epithelium for release into the hemocoel
where the virions circulate in a nonpropagative manner.[2] A second receptor-mediated transcytosis event
occurs at the accessory salivary glands (ASG) from which virus particles
are secreted with saliva to inoculate the plant phloem during subsequent
feeding and thereby infect a new plant.[3] These interactions between aphids and luteovirids needed for viral
transmission are mediated by the viral capsid proteins, which are
made of one major coat protein (CP, 22 kDa) and one minor coat protein
(read-through domain, CP-RTD, 35–55 kDa).[4,5] The
RTD is not required for virus particle assembly or for uptake of virus
from the gut into the aphid hemocoel, but both CP and RTD are essential
for aphid transmission[6−8] and are the sole determinants of vector specificity.[9] The molecular determinants of this host specificity,
however, are still unclear. Pea enation mosaic virus (PEMV) provides
an ideal model virus for the study of luteovirid–aphid interactions
as it is the only luteovirid that is not phloem-limited and is thus
mechanically transmissible to plants.[10]
Although there are several examples of animal viruses using
glycan
or proteon class="Chemical">glycan receptors for binding to host cells,[11,12] relatively little is known about the role of glycans in plant virus–aphid
interactions. However, evidence for the involvement of glycans in
the uptake of pathogens into insect vectors is increasing.[13] The malaria parasite Plasmodium has been shown to require midgut proteoglycans for cell invasion
in the mosquito vector[14] and antibodies
targeting D-mannose residues on the mosquito midgut can block Plasmodium development.[15] Protein
glycosylation in insects consists primarily of high mannose or paucimannose
structures, although more complex glycans have been identified.[16,17]d-Mannose (α) residues are common in several blood-feeding
insects that vector human and livestock disease.[18] Mannose residues constitute the most abundant glycans in
the aphid gut,[19] and mannose-binding lectins
targeting glycoprotein receptors on the surface of the insect gut
exhibit insecticidal activity against a variety of hemipteran pests.[19−23] The requirement for luteovirid interaction with receptor proteins
on the aphid gut epithelium and the abundance of glycoproteins in
the aphid gut lead to the hypothesis that glycans are involved in
luteovirid–aphid interactions.
In contrast to animal-infecting
viruses, plant viruses are mostly
nonenveloped, and the vast majority of nonenveloped viruses do not
contain glycoproteins. There is evidence for the presence of glycosylated
residues on structural proteins of Potato virus X (Alphaflexiviridae)[24] and n class="Species">Plum pox virus (Potyviridae).[25] The PEMVcoat protein sequence contains five
putative N-glycosylation sites predicted using ScanProsite
(http://www.expasy.ch/tools/scanprosite/). A previous study
on turnip yellows virus (TuYV, Luteoviridae) showed that deglycosylation
of virions diminished aphid transmission of the virus, suggesting
that glycosylated structural proteins could be involved in virus recognition
and movement in the aphid.[26] However, a
later study refuted this idea demonstrating that the structural proteins
of TuYV and cucurbit aphid-borne yellow virus (CABYV, Luteoviridae)
were not glycosylated and argued against the role of glycosylated
viral proteins in aphid transmission.[27] The glycosylation of PEMV structural proteins themselves and the
ability of these viral surface proteins to bind to aphid-associated
carbohydrates has not yet been investigated.
To explore the
possible role of glycans in virus–aphid interactions,
we needed information on the ability of insect protein-associated
n class="Chemical">glycans to bind to PEMV. A gut receptor for PEMV is aminopeptidase N,[23b] which is heavily glycosylated
and bound by the plant lectin Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA).[20]N-Linked glycans are found on glycoproteins in all eukaryotes, including
insects.[28] The most common insect N-glycan structures share a terminal trimannoside structure
containing a β-mannoside with two α-mannosides attached
to the O-3 and O-6 positions.[28b,28c] We have previously
demonstrated the synthesis of the challenging β-mannopyranoside
linkage by combining a β-directing C-5 carboxylate methodology[29,30b] with fluorous tag (F-tag)-assisted automated solution-phase synthesis.[30] Herein, we report the development of the first
solution-based automated strategy for synthesis of a β-mannoside-containing
insect N-glycan terminal branched trimannoside and
assays to test the affinity of this branched trisaccharide to PEMV
using both fluorous microarray[31] and isothermal
titration calorimetry (ITC).
Results and Discussion
To synthesize
the insect N-glycan terminal n class="Chemical">trimannoside
by automated solution-phase synthesis, we needed two building blocks:
a building block[32] to construct the two
α-linked termini and a branch point building block capable of
primarily making the more challenging β-linkage. To obtain the
branch point building block, we designed mannuronate building block 6 (Scheme ) with a 3-O-p-methoxybenzyl (PMB)
group as a temporary capping group for the attachment of the α-mannose
at the O-3 position, a C-5 carboxylate as the β-directing group,[29] and a temporary blocking group for the 6-position
branch point. A hydride reduction of the methyl ester should unmask
a free 6-OH for the attachment of the other α-mannose. The synthesis
of the building block started from the known 4,6-O-benzylidene acetal-protected thiol-linked mannoside 1,[33] which could be synthesized from d-mannose in seven steps. After a selective cleavage of the
benzylidene acetal by borane tetrahydrofuran complex (BH3·THF) and dibutylboron triflate (Bu2BOTf),[34] compound 2 with a free hydroxyl
group at the 6-position was formed. The combination of 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-1-piperidinyloxy
free radical (TEMPO) and (diacetoxyiodo)benzene (BAIB) oxidized primary
alcohol 2 to mannuronic acid 3.[29a] After esterification of the carboxylic acid,
the anomeric thiophenyl group of the methyl mannuronate 4 was removed by N-bromosuccinimide (NBS) to give 5 with a free anomeric hydroxyl group.[35] The subsequent formation of the trichloroacetimidate at
the anomeric hydroxyl provided desired donor 6 ready
for the automated solution-phase synthesis.
Scheme 1
Synthesis of the
Branch Point Mannose Building Block
We have previously shown that our automated solution phase
oligosaccharide
synthesis strategy could successfully construct linear oligomers of
β-n class="Chemical">mannuronate and β-mannan up to hexasaccharide.[30] Compared to automated solid-phase oligosaccharide
synthesis,[29e] the automated solution-phase
methodology had multiple significant advantages due to its homogeneous
reaction conditions: (1) lower loadings of the precious glycosyl donor
for each glycosylation cycle, (2) real-time monitoring of the reaction
by TLC or other means, and (3) intermediate purification any time
during the synthesis sequence with the option for reintroduction of
the purified compound for additional automated synthesis cycles.
The automated solution-phase synthesis of the insect glycan (Scheme ) started from the
glycosylation of the allyl C8F17 n class="Chemical">fluorous tag
(F-tag) 13(31a) and donor 6 (3.0 equiv) catalyzed by trimethylsilyl trifluoromethanesulfonate
(TMSOTf, 0.1 equiv) at −20 °C. After 45 min, the reaction
was quenched by triethylamine (TEA), and the solvent was removed by
an evaporation cycle. The PMB group was removed by ceric ammonium
nitrate (CAN), and the reaction mixture was purified with fluorous
solid-phase extraction (FSPE) to remove nonfluorinated impurities
and retain the F-tag-modified product; then, the product was eluted
from the FSPE cartridge and transferred out of the synthesis platform
for further benchtop purification to isolate the β-mannuronate
product from any minor mixtures of anomers. Obtaining pure β-mannuronate
at this stage simplified the purification of the final oligosaccharide.
A significant advantage of this automated solution-phase approach
over more standard solid-phase approaches to biopolymer synthesis
is the ability to carry out such off-platform purification protocols
prior to the end of the total synthesis without removal of the growing
biopolymer chain from the support used for automated purification.
By this approach, β-mannuronate analogue 7 was
obtained in 78% yield over 2 steps. This fluorous-tagged carbohydrate
was then reinjected into the synthesis platform, and the methyl ester
was reduced by lithium triethylborohydride (LiTEBH) at 0 °C.
After fluorous solid phase extraction (FSPE), the diol was glycosylated
with known 2-O-acetyl-mannosyl-trichloroacetimidatedonor 8 (6.0 equiv)[32] activated
by TMSOTf (0.1 equiv) to form two α-mannosidic linkages via
neighboring group participation. The crude trisaccharide 9 was transferred out of the synthesis platform; however, the desired
trisaccharide was more readily isolated from the mixture after deacetylation
under Zemplén conditions. Ultimately, trimannoside 10 was obtained in 50% yield from compound 7 over two
automation steps and one benchtop deprotection step.
Scheme 2
Automated
Solution-Phase Synthesis of the Insect N-Glycan Terminal
Trimannoside
The final deprotection
of the benzyl groups on 10 was
facilitated by hydrogenolysis catalyzed by 10% n class="Chemical">Pd/C under 1000 psi
hydrogen at 20 °C for 48 h to provide, in 51% yield, the fully
deprotected trimannoside 11 containing a fluorous tag
required for adherence of the compound to a fluorous microarray surface[31] (Scheme ). To avoid any possible interactions of the hydrophobic fluorous
tag with the viral surface in the measuring of their binding via calorimetry,
the additional insect glycan 12 with a short linker to
maintain the beta-linkage was made. The synthesis of trimannoside 12 started from the cleavage of the F-tag of 10 by olefin cross-metathesis catalyzed by Grubbs catalyst second generation
under ethylene atmosphere to provide the allyl trimannoside. Hydrogenolysis
catalyzed by 10% Pd/C and Pd black under a 1000 psi hydrogen atmosphere
converted the allyl trimannoside into the fully deprotected n-propyl trimannoside 12 in 91% over two steps
for ITC experiments with unlabeled PEMV.
Scheme 3
Deprotection of the
Insect N-Glycan Terminal Trimannosides
With the required insect-associated
glycans in hand, microarray
experiments were carried out first. The insect n class="Chemical">N-glycan
trimannoside 11 was immobilized using its fluorous tag
onto a commercial C8F17-coated glass slide for
probing with FITC-labeled PEMV. As a positive control, known F-tag-modified
α-mannoside and β-galactoside[30a] were probed with FITC-labeled mannose binding protein concanavalin
A (FITC-ConA). Each of the F-tagged sugars were spotted on the fluorous
glass slide by a microarray spotter in a humidified chamber. The resulting
slide was then incubated with solutions of FITC-PEMV or FITC-ConA
for 1 h. The following rinsing step removed the unbound FITC-PEMV
or FITC-ConA; then, the slide was air-dried for fluorescence scanning.
From the results of the microarray control experiment of F-tagged
α-mannoside, β-galactoside, and 11 incubated
with FITC-ConA, the α-mannoside and 11 showed strong
binding and the β-galactoside showed no binding as predicted.
Interestingly, the FITC-PEMV incubated slide also showed no binding
with any of the saccharides, even with elevated FITC-PEMV concentrations
(Figure , Figure S4).
Figure 1
Fluorous microarray of F-tag-attached
saccharides incubated with
(A) 0.2 μM FITC-ConA or (B) 1.6 μM FITC-PEMV.
Fluorous microarray of F-tag-attached
n class="Chemical">saccharides incubated with
(A) 0.2 μM FITC-ConA or (B) 1.6 μM FITC-PEMV.
To confirm this lack of binding interaction found
in the fluorous
microarray experiment, we commenced with ITC experiments. n class="Chemical">n-Propyl trimannoside 12 was used for the ITC
experiment with the commercially available methyl α-mannoside
as the control group. ConA was the positive control for comparison
with the unlabeled PEMV. The ITC experiments involved titration of
the ligand (saccharide) solution into the mixing cell with the protein
(ConA or PEMV) solution. By comparing the temperature of the mixing
cell and the reference cell, the machine inputs an energy pulse to
equalize the temperature in the two cells after each injection of
the ligand solution. At the end of each titration experiment, Kd, ΔH, ΔS, and N could be extracted from the resulting
data. In the ITC experiments with the two saccharides and ConA, there
was obvious specific binding (Kd = 4.65
μM for methyl α-mannoside, and Kd = 3.27 μM for 12, Figures S5, S6) as expected based on prior work.[36] However, with PEMV, both methyl α-mannoside
and 12 did not show any noticeable overall positive binding
(Figures S7, S8). This result combined
with the fluorous microarray data provides strong evidence that there
is no observable specific binding with the insect N-glycan terminal trimannoside and the pea enation mosaic virus. The
glycosylation state of the PEMV structural protein was also tested
by ITC using ConA. By titrating PEMV into the ConA solution, the result
showed weak binding between the PEMV and ConA, which suggests that
the PEMV does not contain accessible terminal α-mannoside or
α-glucoside moieties (Figure S9).
Conclusions
The first automated solution-phase syntheses of branched N-glycan-related structures using a β-directing n class="Chemical">mannuronate
strategy was successful at producing the insect-associated N-glycan trimannosides 11 and 12. Interestingly, neither fluorous microarray nor ITC experiments
showed any evidence for specific binding between the trimannoside
motif and the PEMV in a multivalent or monovalent presentation format.
This specific case of carbohydrate interaction discussed in this paper
is therefore likely not involved in the transmission of PEMV in aphid
vectors and, consequently, the development of compounds targeting
this interaction for an antiadhesive strategy[37] for viral control would be ineffective. In addition, a lectin-binding
study with PEMV does not show evidence for accessible terminal α-mannosides
or α-glucosides on the viral surface that could be used for
interaction with an aphid-associated carbohydrate binding protein.
Related studies have now been initiated to test whether the nonglycosylated
receptor proteins have any specific binding interaction with PEMV
or whether both the peptide and glycan of the receptor are responsible
for this interaction.
Experimental Section
General
Synthetic Material and Methods
Dichloromethane
(n class="Chemical">CH2Cl2) for glycosylation was distilled from
calcium hydride. Tetrahydrofuran (THF) was collected from a solvent
purification system prior to the reactions. All other commercial solvents
and reagents were reagent grade and used as received without further
purification. The reactions were monitored by thin layer chromatography
(TLC) with 250 μm silica gel TLC plates. The hydrogenation reaction
under 1000 psi hydrogen was operated in a high pressure reactor. The
developed TLC plates were visualized by stain with p-anisaldehyde solution followed by heating on a hot plate. Flash
column chromatography was performed with silica gel (40–63
μm particle size). The automated solution phase synthesis was
performed in the automated synthesis platform with a hood, 16 reactor
vials (13 mL capacity each), and a heating/cooling unit (200 °C
to −20 °C) machined to hold the SPE cartridges at the
Iowa State University Machine Shop. 1H and 13C NMR spectra were obtained at 400 and 100 MHz and also at 600 and
150 MHz. The C–H coupling constants were measured by the coupled 13C NMR spectra. Chemical shifts (δ) were reported in
parts per million (ppm) relative to CDCl3 and CD3OD as internal references. Mass spectra were obtained on a triple
quadrupole mass spectrometer fitted with an ESI interface. HPLC traces
were obtained from an HPLC system using a 3.9 × 150 mm silica
column (4 μm particle size).
General Procedure for Automated
Solution Phase Synthesis of
Oligosaccharides (Figure S1)
Sample Preparation
Mannuronaten class="Species">donor building block
(0.20 g, 0.30 mmol) was dissolved in anhydrous CH2Cl2 (1.6 mL) in the 13 mL vial and placed in the inert reagent
rack under an argon atmosphere. A 0.055 M TMSOTf solution (5.0 mL)
in anhydrous CH2Cl2 was prepared in an 8 mL
vial and placed as indicated in Figure S1 on the inert reagent rack under an argon atmosphere. Acetonitrile
(MeCN, 100 mL) was placed in a stock solution bottle at the stock
solution station. Toluene (1.0 L) in a stock solution bottle was placed
at the reservoir bottle rack with tubing as a reservoir solution for
rinsing. Anhydrous CH2Cl2 (20 mL) in the 50
mL vial was placed on the inert reagent rack under an argon atmosphere.
Anhydrous THF (10 mL) in the 50 mL vial was placed on the inert reagent
rack under an argon atmosphere. An 80% methanol/water (100 mL) stock
was prepared in the 100 mL vial and placed on the inert reagent rack.
The fluorous-tagged acceptor molecule (50 μmol) was dissolved
with anhydrous CH2Cl2 (0.8 mL) in a Wheaton
8 mL E-Z extraction vial (conically bottomed) and flushed with argon,
capped with a septa, and placed on the reagent rack. Methanol (MeOH,
8.0 mL) was transferred to an 8 mL-vial capped with septa and placed
at the reagent rack. TEA (5.0 mL) was added to an 8 mL vial capped
with a septa and placed on the reagent rack. DMSO (8.0 mL) was transferred
to an 8 mL vial capped with a septa and placed on the reagent rack.
A 0.45 M CAN solution in acetonitrile/water (9:1) (5.0 mL) was prepared
in an 8 mL vial capped with a septa and placed on the reagent rack.
LiTEBH solution in THF (1.0 M, 3 mL) was transferred to an 8 mL vial
capped with a septa and placed on the reagent rack. Water (8.0 mL)
was added to an 8 mL vial capped with a septa and placed on the reagent
rack. A fluorous solid-phase extraction (FSPE) cartridge (2.0 g, 10
cc) was preconditioned with 80% methanol/water and placed on the machined
FSPE block. An empty Wheaton 8 mL E-Z extraction vial was placed underneath
the FSPE cartridge (see Figure S1 for the
rack positions).
Cleaning Cycle
Before introduction
of reagents, the
reactor vials were cleaned, dried, and flushed with argon by running
the cleaning cycle. During the cleaning cycle, each of the 16 reactor
vials (13 mL capacity each) was rinsed with n class="Chemical">toluene (8.0 mL) and methanol
(8.0 mL) 3 times. After the solvent was removed, the reactor vials
were dried under vacuum and purged with argon for 45 min. Reagent
solutions were prepared by azeotropic removal of water from each building
block donor with toluene; the resulting building block donors were
then dried under high vacuum. After the cleaning cycles were done,
the reagents were transferred into their respective reagent vials,
which were then placed on the inert condition reagent rack and general
atmosphere reagent rack.
Glycosylation
The needle transferred
the acceptor molecule
(F-tag) solution (0.80 mL) to the reaction vial, followed by the transfer
of the donor molecule solution (0.80 mL). The mixture was vortexed
under ambient temperature at 800 rpm for 20 min. Then, the reactor
vials were cooled to −20 °C during the 60 min wait time
by the heat transfer oil with an 800 rpm vortex rate. The n class="Chemical">TMSOTf solution
(0.10 mL) was transferred into the reactor vial at a 200 rpm vortex
rate. After each individual transfer, the needle (inside and outside)
was rinsed with toluene (2.0 mL) before operating the next task. The
reaction mixture was vortexed at 800 rpm for 45 min at 0 °C under
an argon atmosphere. After the reaction time, the needle withdrew
20 μL of the solution from the reaction mixture and placed it
into the first well of the microtiter plate for thin layer chromatography
monitoring. TEA (0.050 mL) was added to the solution for quenching,
and the solvent was evaporated under reduced pressure.
PMB Deprotection
To the dried residue after the glycosylation
was added the CAN solution (1.0 mL) in the reactor vial. The reaction
mixture was vortexed at 800 rpm for 1 h at ambient temperature. After
the reaction time, the needle withdrew 20 μL of the solution
from the reaction mixture and placed it into the second well of the
microtiter plate for thin layer chromatography monitoring.
Fluorous
Solid-Phase Extraction (FSPE)
The reaction
mixture (1.2 mL) was carried to the FSPE cartridge at the FSPE block
and dispensed at a speed of 1.0 mL/s via the 10 mL syringe. Then,
80% methanol (2.0 mL) was used to rinse the empty reactor vial. The
80% n class="Chemical">methanol solution was removed from the reactor vial and delivered
to the FSPE cartridge. The 80% methanol rinsing and transfer was repeated
one more time. An additional 80% methanol solution (4.0 mL, repeated
2 times) was used to rinse the FSPE cartridge. During the 80% methanol
rinse, the cartridge was positioned at “SPE waste” for
the eluted mixture to be disposed. Acetonitrile (MeCN) (2.0 mL, repeated
3 times) was used to wash the FSPE cartridge for eluting the desired
compound. During the task, the FSPE cartridge was positioned as “SPE
collect” to be placed right above the 8 mL vial for collection
of the sample. After the task, the position of the SPE rack was changed
to “SPE direct” for the needle to withdraw the collected
sample from the conically bottomed vial and to deliver it to the clean
reactor vial for the next reaction.
LiTEBH Reduction
Anhydrous THF (1.0 mL) was added to
the sample and vortexed at 800 rpm at 0 °C under ann class="Chemical">argon atmosphere
for 30 min. The LiTEBH (0.30 mL, 1.0 M in THF) was added to the reaction
solution, and the mixture was vortexed for 30 min at 800 rpm at 0
°C under an argon atmosphere. After the reaction, the needle
withdrew 20 μL of the solution from the reaction mixture and
placed it into the fourth well of the microtiter plate for thin layer
chromatography monitoring. MeOH (0.50 mL) was added to quench the
reaction, and the solvent was removed under reduced pressure.
General Procedure for Benchtop Fluorous Solid-Phase Extraction
(FSPE)
Crude product (<0.30 g) was dissolved in 1.0 mL
dimethyl sulfoxide (n class="Chemical">DMSO) and loaded onto the 80% MeOH preconditioned
2 g FSPE cartridge. The cartridge was washed with 80% MeOH (4.0 mL
× 3 times). Then, the product was eluted with acetone (12 mL).
The solvent was removed under reduced pressure to obtain the desired
product.
General Materials and Methods for Purification and Labeling
of PEMV
Purification of Pea Enation Mosaic Virus
Mechanical
infection of pea plants (Pisum sativum) with n class="Species">PEMV
was performed as described in Liu et al.[38] The method used to purify PEMV from plants was modified from Liu
et al.[38] Infected pea plants (150 g) were
frozen in liquid nitrogen and homogenized in a blender with 0.2 M
sodium acetate buffer (pH 6.0) (1 mL/1 g tissue) and an equal volume
of chloroform. The homogenized tissue suspension was centrifuged at
3000g for 10 min. The supernatant was transferred
to clean tubes and centrifuged at 3000g for 5 min.
The supernatant was again transferred to clean tubes and then centrifuged
at 17,200g for 2 h. Pellets from this step were saved,
and the supernatant was centrifuged at 140,500g for
2.5 h. Virus pellets were soaked in 0.2 M sodium acetate buffer (pH
7.0) overnight at 4 °C and resuspended the following day. After
resuspension, the soluble fraction was centrifuged at 145,000g through a 30% sucrose cushion made in the same buffer.
The final pellet was washed three times with buffer to remove excess
sucrose and resuspended in 0.2 M sodium acetate (pH 7.0). The final
virus solution was frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80
°C. The protein concentration of PEMV was determined by densitometric
analysis of the Coomassie stained bands with reference to known BSA
concentrations resolved by SDS–PAGE.
FITC Labeling of PEMV
Purified PEMV was labeled with
n class="Chemical">fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) using a FITC antibody labeling kit
following the manufacturer’s protocol. The labeling reaction
was completed in 0.2 M sodium acetate buffer (pH 7.0) in place of
the recommended 50 mM sodium borate at pH 8.5. This was done to avoid
precipitation of the PEMV virions at higher pH. To confirm FITC labeling
of PEMV, we separated the virions by SDS-PAGE, and the gel was scanned
using a gel imager in the green-excited mode (532 nm).
General
Materials and Methods for Fluorous Microarray
Microarrays
were printed by a microarray printer equipped with a
robotic pin (0.35 mm). The F-tag attached sugar solution with a concentration
of 222 μM inn class="Chemical">MeOH/DMSO/H2O (v:v:v = 1:3.5:1.15) was
printed onto the fluorous glass slides. The printed slide was dried
in a humid chamber for 20 h and ready for incubation with protein
solution. The protein solution was prepared in various concentrations
in 1× PBS buffer with 1% bovineserum albumin (BSA). For FITC-ConA,
the solution was with 1.0 mg/mL of CaCl2 and 1.0 mg/mL
of MnCl2. The incubation was carried out in an incubation
chamber for 1 h, and then washed twice with 1× PBS buffer and
once with DI water. Then, the slide was dried in air and scanned at
the Iowa State University DNA facility using a microarray scanner
set at 488 nm.
General Materials and Methods for Isothermal
Titration Calorimetry
The ITC experiment was conducted in
an ITC calorimeter. The 10
μM protein solution and the ligand solution (300 μM for
the saccharides and 100 μM for the n class="Species">PEMV) were both prepared
in pH 7.0 NaOAc buffer. For titration experiments with ConA, CaCl2 and MnCl2 (1.0 mg/mL) were added to the buffer
for both ConA and ligand solutions. The solutions were degassed prior
to the experiment, and the titration was carried out at 26 °C
with a 310 rpm stirring rate.
To the phenyl 2-O-benzyl-3-O-p-methoxybenzyl-4,6-O-benzylidene-thio-α-d-mannopyranoside (1) (0.80 g, 1.4 mmol) was added a n class="Chemical">borane tetrahydrofuran complex 1.0
M solution in tetrahydrofuran (14 mL, 14 mmol) under an argon atmosphere
at 0 °C, and the solution was stirred until the starting material
was dissolved. Then, a dibutylboryl trifluoromethanesulfonate 1.0
M solution in CH2Cl2 (1.7 mL, 1.7 mmol) was
added dropwise, and the reaction mixture was stirred under argon atmosphere
at 0 °C for 3 h. Triethylamine (0.30 mL, 2.15 mmol) was added
dropwise to the reaction; then, methanol was added slowly to quench
the reaction at 0 °C. The solvent was removed under reduced pressure,
and the crude mixture was coevaporated with methanol twice. The crude
product was purified by flash column chromatography on silica gel
using EtOAc/petroleum ether (1:2) as eluent. The product was obtained
as a colorless syrup (0.69 g, 1.20 mmol, 86%). R = 0.38 (EtOAc/petroleum ether: 1:2). 1H NMR (CDCl3, 600 MHz): δ 7.40–7.26 (m, 17H, Harom), 6.88–6.87 (m, 2H, Harom), 5.50 (d, 1H, J = 1.6 Hz, H-1), 4.96 (d, 1H, J = 10.8
Hz, CHHPh), 4.69–4.64 (m, 2H, CHHPh), 4.57 (s, 2H, CHHPh), 4.12 (m, 1H, H-5), 4.03
(t, 1H, J = 9.2 Hz, H-4), 3.97 (dd, 1H, J = 2.8, 1.6 Hz, H-2), 3.89 (dd, 1H, J = 9.2, 3.2
Hz, H-3), 3.82 (s, 3H, CO2CH3), 3.81–3.75 (m, 2H, 2 × H-6). 13C NMR (CDCl3, 150 MHz): δ 159.4, 138.5, 138.0, 134.1, 131.9, 130.6,
130.3, 129.6, 129.4, 129.2, 128.5, 128.1, 128.0, 127.9, 127.9, 127.9,
127.7, 114.0, 86.1, 79.8, 76.6, 76.6, 75.3, 74.8, 73.4, 72.4, 72.0,
62.2, 55.4. HRMS (ESI): [M + Na]+ calcd for C34H36NaO6S+, 595.2125; found, 595.2119.
The crude mixture
was transferred out of the synthesis platform after the third cycle
(33rd step of automated synthesis), diluted with CH2Cl2 (20 mL), and washed with n class="Chemical">satd NH4Cl(aq). The organic
layer was dried over Na2SO4, and the solvent
was removed under reduced pressure. Then, the crude product was purified
by flash chromatography on silica gelEtOAc/petroleum ether (1:3).
The disaccharide byproduct could not be separated at this stage, and
the crude mixture was carried to the next step without further purification.
R = 0.47 (EtOAc/petroleum ether, 1:2).
HRMS (ESI): [M + Na]+ calcd for n class="Chemical">C93H95F17NaO19+, 1861.6088; found, 1861.6118.
Cis-4-(n class="Chemical">1H,1H,2H,2H,3H,3H-perfluoroundecyloxy)-2-butenyl 2,4-di-O-benzyl-3,6-di-O-(3,4,6-tri-O-benzyl-α-d-mannopyranosyl)-β-d-mannopyranoside 10 (55 mg, 0.031 mmol) was dissolved in dry CH2Cl2 (4.0 mL), and Grubbs catalyst second generation (5.4
mg, 6.4 μmol) was added. The solution was stirred at 20 °C,
and ethylene gas was bubbled through for 30 min; then, an ethylene
balloon was attached, and the mixture was stirred for 24 h. The solvent
was evaporated, and the mixture was loaded onto a short silica gel
column for purification (CH2Cl2 → EtOAc/petroleum
ether, 1:1). The product fraction was collected; the solvent was evaporated,
and the crude product was purified by FSPE following the general procedure
for benchtop fluorous solid-phase extraction. After the acetone fraction
was collected, and the solvent was removed under reduced pressure,
the product was dissolved in MeOH (3.0 mL) and 10% Pd/C (25 mg) was
added. The mixture was stirred at 20 °C under 1000 psi H2 atmosphere. After 24 h, another portion of Pd black (20 mg)
and AcOH (0.30 mL) was added, and the mixture was stirred at 20 °C
under 1000 psi H2 atmosphere for an additional 24 h. The
mixture was filtered through a small pad of Celite, and the Celite
pad was washed with MeOH (10 × 3 mL). After the solvent was removed
under reduced pressure, the residue was washed with CH2Cl2 (3 × 1.0 mL), and the fully deprotected product
was obtained as a white foam (15.6 mg, 0.028 mmol, 91% over 2 steps).
COSY was used for characterization (see Supporting Information). 1H NMR (CD3OD, 600 MHz):
δ 5.1 (d, J = 1.2 Hz, 1H, H-1), 4.83 (d, 1H, J = 1.8 Hz, H-1), 4.50 (s, 1H, H-1), 4.10 (d, 1H, J = 3.0 Hz, H-2), 3.98 (dd, 1H, J = 3.0,
1.8 Hz, H-2), 3.95 (dd, J = 10.8, 5.4 Hz), 3.88–3.80
(m, 6H), 3.77–3.71 (m, 3H), 3.70–3.60 (m, 4H), 3.59–3.56
(m, 2H), 3.51 (m, 1H), 3.37 (m, 1H), 1.64 (m, 2H, CH2CH3), 0.96 (t, 3H, J = 7.2
Hz, CH3). 13C NMR (CD3OD, 150 MHz): δ 104.1, 101.8, 101.5, 83.0, 76.9, 75.1, 74.5,
72.7, 72.6, 72.5, 72.2, 72.1, 72.1, 69.0, 68. 7, 67.6, 67.3, 63.2,
63.0, 24.0, 11.0. HRMS (ESI): [M + Na]+ calcd for C21H38NaO16+, 569.2052; found,
569.2040.
Authors: Lyudmila A Baratova; Nataliya V Fedorova; Eugenie N Dobrov; Elena V Lukashina; Andrey N Kharlanov; Vitaly V Nasonov; Marina V Serebryakova; Stanislav V Kozlovsky; Olga V Zayakina; Nina P Rodionova Journal: Eur J Biochem Date: 2004-08
Authors: V Brault; J F van den Heuvel; M Verbeek; V Ziegler-Graff; A Reutenauer; E Herrbach; J C Garaud; H Guilley; K Richards; G Jonard Journal: EMBO J Date: 1995-02-15 Impact factor: 11.598
Authors: Regis C Saliba; Zachary J Wooke; Gabriel A Nieves; An-Hsiang Adam Chu; Clay S Bennett; Nicola L B Pohl Journal: Org Lett Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 6.005