Literature DB >> 7681832

Multiple structural elements determine ligand binding of fibroblast growth factor receptors. Evidence that both Ig domain 2 and 3 define receptor specificity.

Y Zimmer1, D Givol, A Yayon.   

Abstract

The murine fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) and keratinocyte growth factor receptor (KGFR) are two products of the same gene which display distinct binding specificities. We and others have shown that a major structural element underlying this functional divergence is a variable 50 amino acids long region constituting the C-terminal half of the third immunoglobulin (Ig)-like domain of the receptor. This region of the two receptors is encoded by two distinct exons which are alternatively used in cells of different tissues and origin. To further investigate the role of this confined variable region in determining ligand binding specificity we have generated a chimeric molecule between FGFR1 and KGFR where the variable segment of KGFR replaces the homologous region in FGFR1. Binding studies as well as chemical crosslinking of radiolabeled ligands revealed that the recombinant FGFR1/KGFR chimera has retained the binding affinity to acidic FGF and FGF4 (hst/kfgf) but lost the capacity to bind basic FGF (bFGF). This chimeric receptor bound keratinocyte growth factor (KGF), however, with significantly lower affinity as compared with KGFR. High affinity binding of KGF was acquired only when also domain 2 in this chimera was replaced by its homologous domain from FGFR2. These results demonstrate that ligand binding and specificity involves multiple receptor elements which are located at both Ig-like domain 2 and 3 of FGF receptors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 7681832

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biol Chem        ISSN: 0021-9258            Impact factor:   5.157


  9 in total

Review 1.  Mode matches and their locations in the hydrophobic free energy sequences of peptide ligands and their receptor eigenfunctions.

Authors:  A J Mandell; K A Selz; M F Shlesinger
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1997-12-09       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Reconstitution of fibroblast growth factor receptor interactions in the yeast two hybrid system.

Authors:  R Aloni-Grinstein; A Seddon; A Yayon
Journal:  Mol Biotechnol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.695

3.  A novel mutation (a886g) in exon 5 of FGFR2 in members of a family with Crouzon phenotype and plagiocephaly.

Authors:  D Steinberger; H Collmann; B Schmalenberger; U Müller
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 6.318

4.  The fibroblast growth factor receptor, FGFR3, forms gradients of intact and degraded protein across the growth plate of developing bovine ribs.

Authors:  Sujata G Pandit; Prasanthi Govindraj; Joachim Sasse; Peter J Neame; John R Hassell
Journal:  Biochem J       Date:  2002-01-15       Impact factor: 3.857

5.  Structural basis by which alternative splicing confers specificity in fibroblast growth factor receptors.

Authors:  Brian K Yeh; Makoto Igarashi; Anna V Eliseenkova; Alexander N Plotnikov; Ifat Sher; Dina Ron; Stuart A Aaronson; Moosa Mohammadi
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-02-18       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Isolation of peptides that inhibit binding of basic fibroblast growth factor to its receptor from a random phage-epitope library.

Authors:  A Yayon; D Aviezer; M Safran; J L Gross; Y Heldman; S Cabilly; D Givol; E Katchalski-Katzir
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1993-11-15       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Biochemical analysis of pathogenic ligand-dependent FGFR2 mutations suggests distinct pathophysiological mechanisms for craniofacial and limb abnormalities.

Authors:  Omar A Ibrahimi; Fuming Zhang; Anna V Eliseenkova; Nobuyuki Itoh; Robert J Linhardt; Moosa Mohammadi
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2004-07-28       Impact factor: 6.150

8.  A truncated K-sam product lacking the distal carboxyl-terminal portion provides a reduced level of autophosphorylation and greater resistance against induction of differentiation.

Authors:  H Ishii; T Yoshida; H Oh; S Yoshida; M Terada
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 4.272

Review 9.  Challenges and future of biomarker tests in the era of precision oncology: Can we rely on immunohistochemistry (IHC) or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) to select the optimal patients for matched therapy?

Authors:  Young Kwang Chae; Ayush Arya; Lauren Chiec; Hiral Shah; Ari Rosenberg; Sandip Patel; Kirtee Raparia; Jaehyuk Choi; Derek A Wainwright; Victoria Villaflor; Massimo Cristofanilli; Francis Giles
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-08-01
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.