| Literature DB >> 31468229 |
Felipe D Silva1, João E Oliveira1, Renan P Freire1, Miriam F Suzuki1, Carlos R Soares1, Paolo Bartolini2.
Abstract
Prolactin (PRL) is a hormone produced by the pituitary gland with innumerable functions, such as lactation, reproduction, osmotic and immune regulation. The present work describes the synthesis of hPRL in human embryonic kidney (HEK293) cells, transiently transfected with the pcDNA-3.4-TOPO® vector carrying the hPRL cDNA. A concentration of ~ 20 mg/L, including glycosylated (G-hPRL) and non-glycosylated (NG-hPRL) human prolactin, was obtained, with ~ 19% of G-hPRL, which is higher than that observed in CHO-derived hPRL (~ 10%) and falling within the wide range of 5-30% reported for pituitary-derived hPRL. N-Glycoprofiling analysis of G-hPRL provided: (i) identification of each N-glycan structure and relative intensity; (ii) average N-glycan mass; (iii) molecular mass of the whole glycoprotein and relative carbohydrate mass fraction; (iv) mass fraction of each monosaccharide. The data obtained were compared to pituitary- and CHO-derived G-hPRL. The whole MM of HEK-derived G-hPRL, determined via MALDI-TOF-MS, was 25,123 Da, which is 0.88% higher than pit- and 0.61% higher than CHO-derived G-hPRL. The main difference with the latter was due to sialylation, which was ~ sevenfold lower, but slightly higher than that observed in native G-hPRL. The "in vitro" bioactivity of HEK-G-hPRL was ~ fourfold lower than that of native G-hPRL, with which it had in common also the number of N-glycan structures.Entities:
Keywords: HEK293 cell; Human prolactin; MALDI–TOF-MS; N-Glycans; N-Glycoprofiling
Year: 2019 PMID: 31468229 PMCID: PMC6715758 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-019-0856-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Fig. 1Expression levels of hPRL by RP-HPLC analysis of conditioned media collected for 4 days from HEK293T adherent (A) and from HEK293F suspension (S) cells, transiently transfected with different vectors (pEDdc-hPRL, p658-hPRL, pcDNA 3.4 TOPO-hPRL)
Fig. 2SDS-PAGE analysis comparing hPRL from conditioned media collected from HEK293T adherent cells with that from HEK293F suspension cells, all transiently transfected with the pcDNA 3.4 TOPO-hPRL vector, after SP-Sepharose FF purification step. MM, molecular mass marker; (1) internal reference preparation of NG-hPRL from E. coli; (2) hPRL obtained from HEK293T adherent cells; (3) hPRL obtained from HEK293F suspension cells
Fig. 3Separation of G-hPRL from NG-hPRL via RP-HPLC: a chromatogram showing the presence of four peaks: (1) eluted material without hPRL; (2) small fraction possibly due to a carbohydrate heterogeneity of HEK-G-hPRL; (3) main peak of HEK-G-hPRL; (4) NG-hPRL. b The same RP-HPLC chromatographic step, here expanded to show how the three fractions (#10–11–12) were collected for N-glycoprofiling determination
Fig. 4HEK293-G-hPRL molecular mass determination by MALDI–TOF-MS
Fig. 5Bioactivity determination of G-hPRL of different origins via the BaF/3-LLP in vitro bioassay: relative potencies have been determined by comparing the ED50 of the different curves and considering the nominal activity of 57.2 IU/mg for the International Standard of hPRL (WHO 97/714)
Fig. 6N-glycan structures of HEK-G-hPRL: the relative percent intensity is indicated below each glycan structure
Different N-glycan structures and relative intensities for the native and two recombinant preparations of G-hPRL
| N-Glycan | Underivatized mass (–H2O) (Da) | Relative intensity of each N-glycan per each preparation (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HEK-G-hPRL | CHO-G-hPRL | Pit-G-hPRL | |||
| 1 | 0 | 892.3 | – | – | 3.9 |
| 2 | F1 | 1038.4 | – | – | 8.2 |
| 3 | M1 | 1054.4 | – | – | 0.4 |
| 4 | M2 | 1216.4 | 9.0 | 4.6 | 0.7 |
| 5 | N1F1 | 1241.5 | 5.8 | – | 0.3 |
| 6 | N2F1(-M) | 1282.5 | 4.5 | – | – |
| 7 | M2P1 | 1296.4 | – | – | 1.1 |
| 8 | M3 | 1378.5 | – | 1.0 | 0.5 |
| 9 | N1G1F1 | 1403.5 | – | – | 0.4 |
| 10 | N2F1 | 1444.5 | 11.0 | – | 0.5 |
| 11 | M3P1 | 1458.5 | – | 7.6 | 3.1 |
| 12 | N3 | 1501.6 | 3.5 | – | – |
| 13 | N1G1M2 | 1581.6 | 3.0 | – | – |
| 14 | N2F2 | 1590.6 | – | – | 0.5 |
| 15 | N2G1F1 | 1606.6 | 4.1 | 1.3 | 0.5 |
| 16 | N2G2 | 1622.6 | 2.7 | – | – |
| 17 | N3F1/N2Gn1F1 | 1647.6 | 9.4 | – | 0.6 |
| 18 | N3G1 | 1663.6 | 2.9 | – | – |
| 19 | M1N1Gn1F1(SO4)1 | 1686.6 | – | – | 3.2 |
| 20 | N1G1S1F1 | 1694.6 | – | 0.9 | 0.6 |
| 21 | M1N1G1S1 | 1710.6 | – | 1.1 | – |
| 22 | N2Gn1F1(SO4)1 | 1727.6 | – | – | 1.8 |
| 23 | N2G1F2 | 1752.7 | 2.6 | – | 0.8 |
| 24 | N2G2F1 | 1768.6 | 2.4 | 5.0 | – |
| 25 | N2G3 | 1784.6 | 3.3 | – | – |
| 26 | N2Gn1F2 | 1793.7 | – | – | 1.4 |
| 27 | N3G1F1 | 1809.7 | 4.2 | – | – |
| 28 | N1S2F1 | 1823.6 | 2.9 | – | – |
| 29 | N4F1 | 1850.7 | 4.3 | – | – |
| 30 | N2G1Gn1F1(SO4)1 | 1889.6 | – | – | 1.3 |
| 31 | N2G1S1F1 | 1897.7 | – | 0.6 | – |
| 32 | N2G2S1 | 1913,7 | 1.8 | 1.8 | – |
| 33 | N2G2F2 | 1914.7 | 2.1 | – | 0.5 |
| 34 | N2Gn2F1(SO4)1 | 1930.6 | – | – | 4.1 |
| 35 | N2G4 | 1946.7 | 1.6 | – | – |
| 36 | N3G1F2 | 1955.7 | 2.7 | – | – |
| 37 | N1S2F2 | 1969.7 | 2.7 | – | – |
| 38 | N3G2F1 | 1971.7 | 1.8 | – | – |
| 39 | N3G3 | 1987.7 | 1.6 | – | – |
| 40 | N4F2 | 1996.7 | 3.2 | – | – |
| 41 | N2Gn2F2 | 1996.8 | – | – | 0.6 |
| 42 | N2Gn2F1(SO4)2 | 2010.6 | – | – | 28.1 |
| 43 | N4G1F1 | 2012.8 | 1.7 | – | – |
| 44 | N2G1Gn1F2(SO4)1 | 2035.7 | – | – | 1.7 |
| 45 | N2G2S1F1 | 2059.7 | – | 12.0 | 0.5 |
| 46 | N2G2F3 | 2060.8 | 1.4 | – | – |
| 47 | N2G3S1 | 2075.7 | 1.6 | – | – |
| 48 | N2Gn2F2(SO4)1 | 2076.7 | – | – | 33.8 |
| 49 | N3G2S1 | 2116.8 | 2.4 | – | – |
| 50 | N2Gn2F3 | 2142.8 | – | – | 0.5 |
| 51 | N2G2S2 | 2204.8 | – | 6.9 | – |
| 52 | N2G2S2F1 | 2350.8 | – | 56.1 | 0.6 |
| 53 | N3G3S2F1 | 2715,9 | – | 0.8 | – |
| 54 | N3G3S3 | 2861.0 | – | 0.3 | – |
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| – | – |
| ||
Abbreviations for N-glycans were made by not considering the basic pentasaccharide nucleus (“zero”) and adding all other monosaccharides, as stated in Table 1 and Fig. 6, in the following order: Man (M); GlcNAc (N); Gal (G); GalNAc (Gn); NeuAc/sialic acid (S); Fuc (F). So, for example, NeuAc1 Gal1 GlcNAc2 Fuc1 + Man3 GlcNAc2, becomes N2G1S1F1 (Capone et al. 2015)
Molecular mass of HEK cell-derived glycosylated prolactin obtained via N-glycoprofiling analysis and compared to MALDI–TOF-MS determination
| Via N-glycoprofiling | Via MALDI–TOF-MS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average N-glycan mass (Da) | G-hPRL MM (Da)a | Carbohydrate moiety (%)b | NG-hPRL (Mr) | G-hPRL (Mr) | Carbohydrate moiety (%) | Difference between G-hPRL MM and Mr (%) |
| 1656.3 | 24,554.1 | 6.7 | 23,035.9 | 25,123.5 | 8.3 | − 2.27 |
aCalculated by adding the average N-glycan mass to the calculated NG-hPRL mass of 22,897.75 (Capone et al. 2015)
bCalculated as a percent of the average glycan mass on G-hPRL MM
Comparisons between the molecular masses of G-hPRL of different origins, determined by MALDI–TOF-MS (Mr) and by N-glycoprofiling (MM)
| Host cell | MALDI–TOF-MS (Da) | N-Glycoprofilings (Da) | Difference MM/Mr (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Human lactotrophsa | 24,903 | 24,736 | − 0.68 |
| CHO cellsa | 24,970 | 25,016 | + 0.18 |
| C127 cellsa | 25,139 | – | – |
| HEK293 cellsb | 25,124 | 24,554 | − 2.27 |
aFrom Capone et al. (2015)
bFrom the present work
Monosaccharide/HEK-G-hPRL molar ratio determination based on N-glycoprofiling
| Fraction of glycan mass (%) | Monosaccharide weight contribution (Da) | Mole/G-hPRL mole | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fuc | 7.20 | 119.3 | 0.82 |
| GlcNAc | 50.98 | 844.4 | 4.16 |
| Gal | 6.71 | 111.1 | 0.69 |
| Man | 32.77 | 542.8 | 3.35 |
| SA | 2.55 | 42.2 | 0.14 |
Considering the average N-glycan mass = 1656.3 Da