©1995 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.
Glycan Requirements of Glycosylphosphatidylinositol Phospholipase C from Trypanosoma brucei
GLUCOSAMINYLINOSITOL DERIVATIVES INHIBIT PHOSPHATIDYLINOSITOL PHOSPHOLIPASE C (*)

(Received for publication, May 23, 1994; and in revised form, November 8, 1994)

James C. Morris (1)(§) Lei Ping-Sheng (2) Tsung-Ying Shen (2) Kojo Mensa-Wilmot (1)(¶)

From the  (1)Department of Cellular Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602 and the (2)Department of Chemistry, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
FOOTNOTES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES

ABSTRACT

Glycosylphosphatidylinositol phospholipase C (GPI-PLC) from Trypanosoma brucei and phosphatidylinositol phospholipase C (PI-PLC) from Bacillus sp. both cleave glycosylphosphatidylinositols (GPIs). However, phosphatidylinositol, which is efficiently cleaved by PI-PLC, is a very poor substrate for GPI-PLC. We examined GPI-PLC substrate requirements using glycoinositol analogs of GPI components as potential inhibitors. Glucosaminyl(alpha16)-D-myo-inositol (GlcN(alpha16)Ins), GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate, GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins, and GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-dodecyl phosphonate inhibited GPI-PLC. GlcN(alpha16)Ins was as effective as Man(alpha14)GlcN(alpha16)Ins; we surmise that GlcN(alpha16)Ins is the crucial glycan motif for GPI-PLC recognition. Inhibition by GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate suggests product inhibition since GPIs cleaved by GPI-PLC possess a GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate at the terminus of the residual glycan. The effectiveness of GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins indicates that the D-myo-inositol (Ins) 2-hydroxyl is not required for substrate recognition, although it is probably essential for catalysis. GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-L-myo-inositol, unlike GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins, had no effect on GPI-PLC; hence, GPI-PLC can distinguish between the two enantiomers of Ins. Surprisingly, GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate was not a potent inhibitor of Bacillus cereus PI-PLC, and GlcN(alpha16)Ins had no effect on the enzyme. However, both GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate and GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-dodecyl phosphonate were competitive inhibitors of PI-PLC. These observations suggest an important role for a phosphoryl group at the Ins 1-position in PI-PLC recognition of GPIs. Other studies indicate that abstraction of a proton from the Ins 2-hydroxyl is not an early event in PI-PLC cleavage of GPIs. Furthermore, both GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins 1-phosphate and GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-L-myo-inositol inhibited PI-PLC without affecting GPI-PLC. Last, the aminoglycoside G418 stimulated PI-PLC, but had no effect on GPI-PLC. Thus, these enzymes represent mechanistic subclasses of GPI phospholipases C, distinguishable by their sensitivity to GlcN(alpha16)Ins derivatives and aminoglycosides. Possible allosteric regulation of PI-PLC by GlcN(alpha16)Ins analogs is discussed.


INTRODUCTION

African trypanosomiasis is a human disease caused by the protozoan parasite Trypanosoma brucei. In the mammalian host, T. brucei is protected by a surface coat composed of a variant surface glycoprotein (VSG). (^1)VSG is glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI)-anchored; its GPI contains EtN-phospho-6Man(alpha12)Man(alpha16)Man(alpha14)GlcN(alpha16)-myo-Ins 1-phosphodimyristoylglycerol linked to the alpha-carboxyl of the COOH-terminal residue of VSG through an amide bond with EtN(1) . T. brucei contains a glycosylphosphatidylinositol phospholipase C (GPI-PLC) that can cleave dimyristoylglycerol from VSG GPI, leaving VSG containing a GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate attached to the residual GPI glycan components(2) .

GPI-PLC is a 39-kDa integral membrane protein(3, 4, 5, 6) . It efficiently cleaves VSG GPI (apparent K = 370 nM; k = 2920 min) (5, 6) and some GPI biosynthetic intermediates(7) . Phosphatidylinositol (PI) is a very poor substrate for the enzyme(3, 4, 5, 6) . Although the biological function is unclear (reviewed in (8) and (9) ), GPI-PLC activity is detectable in bloodstream-form T. brucei, where VSG is expressed, and down-regulated 1000-fold in procyclic (insect stage) T. brucei. Thus, the enzyme could be involved in catabolism either of the VSG GPI anchor or of GPI biosynthetic intermediates. Nothing has been reported on the catalytic mechanism of GPI-PLC.

Phosphatidylinositol phospholipase C (PI-PLC) from Bacillus cereus cleaves GPIs(10) ; however, unlike GPI-PLC, it cleaves PI efficiently(6, 11, 12) . PI-PLC has a region of protein sequence similarity to GPI-PLC(11) ; 80 residues beginning at positions 69 and 70 for the T. brucei and B. cereus enzymes, respectively, can be aligned with 19 matches in a region that is 27.6% identical and 51.3% similar(8, 9, 13) .

Detailed information on GPI recognition is not available either for GPI-PLC or PI-PLC. Interestingly, when VSG and PI are present in the same reaction mixture at identical concentrations, GPI-PLC selectively cleaves VSG(6) , suggesting that glycan constituents of GPIs might be important for substrate recognition. Accordingly, we tested synthetic glycan components of EtN-phospho-6Man(alpha12)Man(alpha16)Man(alpha14) GlcN(alpha16)-myo-Ins, the ``conserved protein-GPI core,'' as potential inhibitors of GPI-PLC. We report that GlcN(alpha16)Ins is probably the major glycan determinant of GPI-PLC specificity. Similar studies with GlcN(alpha16)Ins and its derivatives on B. cereus PI-PLC indicate that steps toward cleavage of the identical GPI phosphodiester are different between GPI-PLC and PI-PLC.


EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Materials

Protein-grade Nonidet P-40 was from Calbiochem. Geneticin (G418) was obtained from Life Technologies, Inc. [9,10-^3H]Myristic acid (40 Ci/mmol) was supplied by DuPont NEN. All other reagents, unless otherwise indicated, were from Sigma.

Enzymes and Substrate

Large-scale purification of recombinant GPI-PLC from T. brucei was achieved (14) by modifications of a published protocol(6) . Briefly, a membranous pellet of an Escherichia coli pKMW2/BL21(DE3) lysate (14) was extracted with buffer containing 2% Nonidet P-40(14) . This resulting membrane fraction was applied to a 10-ml monoclonal antibody affinity column and washed thoroughly(6) . GPI-PLC was eluted with 50 mM sodium phosphate, pH 12, 0.1% Nonidet P-40 and neutralized immediately by the addition of an equal volume of chilled (0 °C) 1 M Tris-HCl, pH 6.0, 2.0% Nonidet P-40(14) . To prepare active fractions from the immunoaffinity column (6) for Mono P chromatography, the material was dialyzed overnight at 4 °C against 75 mM Tris-HCl, pH 9.3, 0.1% Nonidet P-40 and centrifuged (16,000 times g, 20 min, 4 °C). Dialyzed fractions (10 ml) were loaded onto a Mono P HR 5/20 fast protein liquid chromatography column (Pharmacia Biotech Inc.) equilibrated with 75 mM Tris-HCl, pH 9.3, 1% Nonidet P-40. Flow-through fractions contained GPI-PLC (1.6 times 10^7 units/mg), >98% pure judging by densitometric scanning of Coomassie Blue-stained SDS-polyacrylamide gels.

PI-PLC from B. cereus (600 units/mg) was obtained from Boehringer Mannheim. [^3H]Myristate-labeled VSG was isolated from T. brucei (ILTat 1.3)(3, 14) .

Synthesis and Characterization of Glycans

Synthesis of the compounds 6-O-(2-amino-2-deoxy-alpha-D-glucopyranosyl)-D-myo-inositol 1-phosphate (GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate; compound VP-600L) and GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate (compound VP-601L) was as described previously(15) . Their physical properties (^1H NMR and mass spectroscopy) are consistent with those published by Plourde et al.(15) . Details of the synthesis of other compounds will be published elsewhere. (^2)All samples were optically pure; each was synthesized from a known optically pure myo-inositol intermediate(16, 17) . Compounds were purified by ion-exchange chromatography (Bio-Rad AG-50W-X8 H form) or by chromatography on a Waters Sep-Pak C(18) column(15) . The presence of an amino group was confirmed by the ninhydrin test, and phosphate was identified by molybdenum blue staining(18) . Structures were confirmed by NMR and mass spectroscopy or microanalysis. ^1H NMR spectra were recorded on a GE QE-300 apparatus. All proton assignments were confirmed by the appropriate coupling J-values.^2 Mass spectra were recorded on a Finnigan gas chromatography/mass spectrometer Model 4600 apparatus using either methane or isobutane positive ion chemical ionizations.

Inhibitor Solutions

PI, phosphatidylcholine (PC), and phosphatidylserine (PS) were dried under a stream of nitrogen (to remove the chloroform in which the manufacturer shipped them) and thoroughly resuspended at 20 mM in the appropriate assay buffer immediately before use. Phosphatidylglycerol (PG), G418, and glycan components of the conserved protein-GPI core and their analogs were dissolved at 20 mM in 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, and stored at -20 °C.

GPI-PLC Assays

A GPI-PLC reaction mixture was assembled on ice in a 1.5-ml microcentrifuge tube. The quantity of GPI-PLC (or PI-PLC; see below) used was determined empirically. Varying amounts of each phospholipase C were added to substrate under the specified standard conditions (see below), and the reaction was terminated after 15 min at 37 °C. The amount of enzyme that cleaved 60% of [^3H]myristate-labeled VSG was used in the kinetic analysis, ensuring that one stayed within the linear range of the assay.

GPI-PLC (19 units, 1.19 ng) was first added to 20 µl of assay buffer (1 times assay buffer = 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 5 mM EDTA, 1% Nonidet P-40), following which inhibitors were added to their specified final concentrations (defined for 30 µl), and the mixture was incubated on ice for 10 min. [^3H]Myristate-labeled membrane-form VSG (2 µg in 10 µl of 1 times assay buffer) was added, and the tubes were incubated at 37 °C for 15 min. The reaction was terminated by chilling the mixture on ice and vortex mixing with 500 µl of water-saturated 1-butanol (at room temperature). Phases were separated by centrifugation (12,000 times g, 1 min, 25 °C). Enzyme activity was quantified by measuring the amount of [^3H]dimyristoylglycerol released into the upper butanol phase using a Beckman LS 6000TA scintillation counter(3, 6) . Radioactivity from a mock digest (no enzyme addition) of [^3H]myristate-labeled VSG using 30 µl of assay buffer was subtracted as background from all counts obtained. Activity of GPI-PLC obtained without the addition of potential inhibitors in a parallel assay was assigned a value of 100%. Compounds that inhibited [^3H]myristate-labeled membrane-form VSG cleavage by >70% at 5 mM were investigated further (see ``Interfacial Kinetic Analysis''). Average values from duplicate determinations performed in several independent experiments showed a variation of leq10%.

PI-PLC was diluted into 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, and added (1 times 10 units, 0.17 ng) to 20 µl of PI-PLC buffer (25 mM HEPES/KOH, pH 7.5, 0.1% sodium deoxycholate) (10) with or without inhibitor on ice in a 1.5-ml microcentrifuge tube. The enzyme assay protocol was similar to that described above for GPI-PLC.

Interfacial Kinetic Analysis

Although the interaction between PI-PLC, a soluble enzyme(10, 12) , and substrate in detergent micelles remains to be clarified, catalysis occurs in the scooting mode on PI or PI/PC vesicles(19) . Furthermore, PI-PLC is sensitive to high concentrations of Triton X-100 and n-octyl glucoside(12) , suggesting enzyme interaction with detergent. Additionally, PI-PLC releases GPI-anchored proteins from the plasma membranes of intact cells(10) . Scooting can therefore be assumed as an appropriate model for kinetic analysis of membrane-form VSG cleavage at the interface of the deoxycholate micelles present in the PI-PLC reaction buffer. Deoxycholate micelles (238 µM) are in great excess of PI-PLC (one molecule of PI-PLC/10^6 micelles of deoxycholate, based on a deoxycholate monomer aggregation value of 10), and preliminary analysis (data not shown) indicated that scooting was a valid model. Effective inhibitor concentration at the micelle interface was expressed as a mole fraction (X(i)), the ratio of inhibitor concentration to the sum of inhibitor and detergent concentrations(20, 21) . Plots of V(o)/V(i) against X(i)/(1 - X(i)) (V(o) = velocity of the reaction in the absence of inhibitor; V(i) = reaction velocity in the presence of inhibitor) were used to determine the mole fraction of inhibitor at which reaction velocity is reduced 2-fold (X(i))(20, 21) . Concurrently, competitive inhibitors were identified in these plots by two features. 1) Data on the graph could be fit by a linear equation (with a coefficient of determination (r^2) of >0.90); and 2) when X(i) = zero, V(o)/V(i) is close to unity within limits of experimental error. If either condition was not met, the points were fit with an exponential curve function of Graph III version 1.01 (Computer Associates International, Inc., Islandia, NY), and inhibition was deemed not competitive. We note that this analysis does not distinguish between uncompetitive and noncompetitive inhibition.

GPI-PLC is presumed to be bound at the surface of Nonidet P-40 micelles with its active site facing bulk medium, a notion supported by the enzyme's ability to cleave GPI biosynthetic intermediates in vivo on the cytoplasmic side of the endoplasmic reticulum(22) . The micelle concentration of 1% Nonidet P-40 is 118.4 µM, while the concentrations of GPI-PLC and [^3H]myristate-labeled VSG are 1 nM and 1.2 µM, respectively, in the assay. Effective inhibitor concentration at the micelle interface was expressed as a mole fraction (X(i))(20, 21) . X(i) was determined as described above for PI-PLC.

For both GPI-PLC and PI-PLC analysis, the concentration of hydrophilic compounds was included in the denominator for calculation of X(i) for two reasons. 1) It emphasizes the interfacial nature of the inhibition events under discussion. Assuming that the interaction of hydrophilic compounds with detergent micelles is transient, the compounds still have to bind enzyme-micelle-VSG complexes to exert their inhibitory effects. 2) It makes for consistency in comparison of data from Fig. 2with X(i) values presented in Table 1. The alternative approach of excluding the concentration of hydrophilic compounds from the denominator in X(i) determinations produced similar conclusions, except that in examining X(i) values, one was restricted to comparing hydrophilic compounds with each other and, likewise, amphipathic inhibitors with each other. The approach used here eliminates this apparent limitation.


Figure 2: Structures of glycans and their effects on GPI-PLC activity. Compounds were tested as described under ``Experimental Procedures.'' Percent inhibition at 5 mM was determined by comparison of the amount of [^3H]dimyristoylglycerol cleaved from [^3H]myristate-labeled VSG by GPI-PLC in the presence or absence of inhibitor. Values varied <10% in two or more independent duplicate determinations.






RESULTS

Glycan Components of the Conserved Protein-GPI Core Inhibit GPI-PLC

The VSG GPI anchor contains EtN-phospho-6Man(alpha12)Man(alpha16)Man(alpha14)GlcN(alpha16)-myo-Ins 1-phosphodimyristoylglycerol(1) . T. brucei GPI-PLC can cleave this anchor, releasing dimyristoylglycerol. PI per se is a very poor substrate for GPI-PLC(3, 4, 5, 6) ; therefore, we hypothesized that the ``conserved glycan core'' of protein-GPIs, EtN-phospho-6Man(alpha12)Man(alpha16)Man(alpha14)GlcN(alpha16)myo-Ins, might be critical for substrate recognition. Reasoning that individual components of the GPI glycan could be inhibitors of GPI-PLC, Ins, GlcN, and Man were tested; at 5 mM, they had no effect on GPI-PLC activity when added alone or in all possible combinations. Furthermore, Ins 1-phosphate, GlcNAc, and EtN had no effect (data not shown). Consequently, synthetic glycoinositols and their analogs were tested.

GPI-PLC assay conditions used for these inhibitor studies (see ``Experimental Procedures'') were empirically chosen to be linear with respect to enzyme concentration (Fig. 1A) and time (Fig. 1B), thereby ensuring that effects of potential inhibitors were discernible, as illustrated for GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate (compound VP-601L) (Fig. 1C). The glycan 6-O-(2-amino-2-deoxy-alpha-D-glucopyranosyl)-D-myo-inositol (GlcN(alpha16)Ins; compound VP-606L) (Fig. 2) inhibited GPI-PLC moderately (28.9%). (All percentage inhibitions are quoted at 5 mM glycan. Variability in sets of duplicate determinations performed on different occasions was <10%.) We then explored whether modifications of GlcN(alpha16)Ins could produce better inhibitors.


Figure 1: GPI-PLC inhibition conditions. A, the enzyme dose-response curve is shown. Duplicate sets of a standard 30-µl reaction mixture containing 2 µg of [^3H]myristate-labeled VSG (10,000 dpm, 1 µM final concentration) in 1 times assay buffer were assembled on ice. Varying amounts of GPI-PLC (1.6 times 10^7 units/mg) were added as indicated, and the reaction was incubated at 37 °C for 15 min. [^3H]Dimyristoylglycerol cleaved from VSG was quantitated after extraction into 500 µl of water-saturated 1-butanol as described under ``Experimental Procedures.'' Data points are averages from duplicate reactions. A background of 353 dpm from a blank reaction (i.e. no GPI-PLC addition) has been subtracted from the data. The plot was generated with ``UltraFit'' (BioSoft, Ferguson, MO). B, the time course is shown. To a standard reaction mixture (as described for A) was added 19 units of GPI-PLC. The mixture was maintained at 37 °C and terminated at the indicated intervals, followed by quantitation of the released [^3H]dimyristoylglycerol as described for A. C, GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate (VP-601L) inhibits GPI-PLC cleavage of [^3H]myristate-labeled VSG. A reaction mixture containing 19 units of GPI-PLC (as described for B) was assembled on ice with or without GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate (VP-601L) as detailed under ``Experimental Procedures.'' Following a 15-min incubation at 37 °C, released [^3H]dimyristoylglycerol was quantitated (see ``Experimental Procedures''). The mole fraction (X) is the ratio of inhibitor concentration to the sum of inhibitor and detergent concentrations (see ``Experimental Procedures''). A mole fraction of 0.3 is equivalent to 5 mM VP-601L under these conditions.



The addition of a phosphate group to the Ins 1-hydroxyl of VP-606L, resulting in GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate (VP-600L), did not increase inhibitory potency (Fig. 2). However, cyclization of the Ins 1-phosphate to the Ins 2-hydroxyl, forming GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate (VP-601L), increased potency 2.3-fold (over that observed for GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate) to 74.6% (Fig. 2). The glycan O-(alpha-D-mannopyranosyl)-(1,4)-O-(2-amino-2-deoxy-alpha-D-glucopyranosyl)-(1,6)-D-myo-Ins (Man(alpha14)GlcN(alpha16)Ins), which extends the conserved protein-GPI glycan core components to three, was only as inhibitory as GlcN(alpha16)Ins.

Replacing the Ins 1-phosphate of VP-600L (see above) with Ins 1-dodecyl phosphonate increased inhibition of GPI-PLC. GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-dodecyl phosphonate (VP-604L) was 2.6-fold more inhibitory (81.1%) than GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate. However, GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-hexyl phosphonate (VFT-2) was not significantly better than GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate (Fig. 2). Interestingly, Ins 1-dodecyl phosphonate (VP-602L) inhibited GPI-PLC (60.3%) (Fig. 2), even though Ins 1-phosphate had no effect on the enzyme (data not shown).

Modifications of the amino group of GlcN(alpha16)Ins affected inhibitory properties. Acetylation to GlcNAc(alpha16)Ins (VC-105B) caused a 4.5-fold drop in the inhibition originally observed with GlcN(alpha16)Ins (6.4%) (Fig. 2). Inhibitory activity was partially restored when the methyl group of GlcNAc(alpha16)Ins was replaced by the bulkier N,N-dimethylamino group to produce N-(N,N-dimethylcarbamyl)-GlcN(alpha16)Ins (VC-109B) (19.3%) (Fig. 2). Nevertheless, N-(N,N-dimethylcarbamyl)-GlcN(alpha16)Ins was less inhibitory than GlcN(alpha16) Ins.

Inositol ring modifications were also examined. Elimination of the hydroxyl group at the Ins 2-position of GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate (VP-600L) to form GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins 1-phosphate (VP-612L) abolished inhibitory activity (Fig. 2). Interestingly, removal of the phosphate group from VP-612L, forming GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins (VP-615L), re-established inhibitory activity (80.5% inhibition) (Fig. 2). This 2-deoxyIns analog is more potent than the parent compound, GlcN(alpha16)Ins (VP-606L). GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-L-myo-inositol (VP-614L), in contrast to GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins, had little effect on GPI-PLC (1.6%) (Fig. 2).

Compounds that inhibited GPI-PLC by >70% at 5 mM (except GlcN(alpha16)Ins and Ins 1-dodecyl phosphonate (VP-602L)) were analyzed further to determine their inhibitory potency (X(i)) (see ``Experimental Procedures'' for rationale and approach)(21, 23) . GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate (VP-601L) and GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins (VP-615L) had X(i) values of 0.16 and 0.11, respectively (Table 1). The X(i) of GlcN(alpha16)Ins (VP-606L) was not approached under the conditions of our assay. GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-dodecyl phosphonate (VP-604L) had an X(i) of 0.14 (Table 1). Thus, the inhibitory potency of GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-dodecyl phosphonate (VP-604L), which is amphipathic, is comparable to that of GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins (VP-615L), a hydrophilic compound.

Effects of Lipid Components of a GPI on GPI-PLC

The glycoinositol of VSG GPI is attached by a phosphodiester to dimyristoylglycerol. Since the scissile bond links Ins to a glycerolipid, we checked whether phospholipids or free fatty acids affected GPI-PLC activity. Neither palmitate nor myristate (at 5 mM) inhibited GPI-PLC (data not shown). However, PI, PS, and PG inhibited GPI-PLC by 93.3, 76.3, and 86.5%, respectively (Table 1). The X(i) of PI was 0.07 (Table 1). PIs containing either stearate and arachidonate or linoleate and palmitate as their acyl groups were equally inhibitory (data not shown). Phosphatidylethanolamine and phosphatidylcholine had relatively little effect (2.7 and 16.5%, respectively), indicating that the inhibition by PI, PS, and PG was specific.

Inhibition of PI-PLC

PI-PLC cleaves PI initially, releasing two products, diacylglycerol and Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate, the latter of which is slowly hydrolyzed to Ins 1-phosphate(24) . PI-PLC also cleaves GPI-anchored proteins (10) and might recognize glycan components of a GPI. Therefore, compounds used in these GPI-PLC studies were tested against PI-PLC.

In contrast to its moderate inhibition of GPI-PLC, GlcN(alpha16)Ins (VP-606L) had no effect on PI-PLC (Table 1). However, GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate (VP-600L) inhibited PI-PLC competitively (66.9%) (Fig. 3A). Remarkably, cyclization of the Ins 1-phosphate to the Ins 2-hydroxyl reduced inhibitory potency 3.8-fold; GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate (VP-601L) inhibited PI-PLC by only 17.3% (Table 1). GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-dodecyl phosphonate (VP-604L) was 44.6% inhibitory (Table 1); the inhibition was competitive (Fig. 3B) with an X(i) of 0.69. On the contrary, GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-hexyl phosphonate (VFT-2) did not inhibit PI-PLC (data not shown). Ins 1-dodecyl phosphonate (VP-602L) inhibited PI-PLC (66.9%).


Figure 3: Nature of PI-PLC inhibition by hydrophilic (A) and (B) amphipathic GlcN(alpha16)Ins derivatives. Shown is the ratio of the initial PI-PLC reaction rate in the absence of inhibitors (V) to the initial reaction rate in the presence of inhibitors (V) plotted against X/(1 - X); see ``Experimental Procedures'' for details. A: circle, GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins 1-phosphate (VP-612L); times, GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-L-myo-inositol (VP-614L); , GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins (VP-615L); , GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate (VP-600L). B: bullet, GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-dodecyl phosphonate (VP-604L). The coefficient of determination and yaxis intercept for a linear regression are as follows: VP-612L, 0.914 and -0.49; VP-614L, 0.968 and -0.027; VP-615L, 0.982 and 0.787; VP-600L, 0.998 and 1.357; and VP-604L, 0.978 and 0.769. If the coefficient of determination was >0.90 and the intercept on the yaxis was 1 ± 0.5, then data were fit with a straight line in A and B.



Although GlcN(alpha16)Ins (VP-606L) did not inhibit PI-PLC, modifications of the Ins and GlcN moieties produced better inhibitors, some of which were highly specific for PI-PLC. The enzyme was competitively inhibited by GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins (VP-615L) (X(i) = 0.44) (Fig. 3A). PI-PLC was inhibited 91.7% by GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins 1-phosphate (VP-612L) (Table 1). The X(i) of GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins 1-phosphate was 0.39, although the inhibition was not competitive (Fig. 3A). Intriguingly, GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-L-myo-inositol (VP-614L) was nearly as effective as GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins 1-phosphate (VP-612L) (89.1%) (Table 1). Similarly, the inhibition was not competitive, and the X(i) was 0.46 (Fig. 3A and Table 1). Modification of the amino group of GlcN(alpha16)Ins influenced inhibitory activity; GlcNAc(alpha16)Ins (VC-105B) inhibited PI-PLC (60%) (Table 1).

PI was a weak inhibitor of PI-PLC (15.6%) (Table 1). Similarly, PG, PS, PE, and PC had little effect on PI-PLC (Table 1).

Geneticin (G418) Specifically Stimulates PI-PLC

Geneticin (G418), an aminoglycoside antibiotic, stimulated PI-PLC by 250% at a mole fraction of 0.07 (250 µM) (Fig. 4), but had no effect on GPI-PLC (Fig. 4). The related aminoglycoside gentamicin stimulated PI-PLC to a similar extent (data not shown).


Figure 4: G418 stimulates PI-PLC. G418 was incubated with PI-PLC (0.017 ng, 1 times 10 units) (bullet) or GPI-PLC (1.19 ng, 4 units) (circle) and analyzed as described for the glycans (see ``Experimental Procedures''). The ratio of reaction velocity in the presence or absence of G418 is presented.




DISCUSSION

Substrate Requirements of GPI-PLC

T. brucei GPI-PLC cleaves the VSG GPI anchor, releasing dimyristoylglycerol and ``soluble'' VSG, the latter product of which contains an EtN-phospho-6Man(alpha12)Man(alpha16)Man(alpha14)GlcN(alpha16)-myo-Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate moiety attached to the COOH terminus of the protein by an amide bond. PI, the first precursor in GPI biosynthesis (reviewed in (25) and (26) ), is a very poor substrate(3, 4, 5, 6) ; the same is true for N-acetylglucosaminylphosphatidylinositol (GlcNAc(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphodiacylglycerol)(27) , the first committed intermediate. Additional information on GPI-PLC specificity has been derived from cleavage of unpurified protein-GPI biosynthetic intermediates generated in a cell-free system (discussed in (14) ). Deacetylation of GlcNAc(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphodiacylglycerol, yielding glucosaminylphosphatidylinositol (GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphodiacylglycerol), and subsequent stepwise mannosylations generate intermediates that are GPI-PLC-sensitive(7, 28) , except when acylated on the Ins moiety.

Susceptibility of polysaccharide-GPIs (glycoinositol phospholipids) to GPI-PLC provided clues to the substrate requirements of the enzyme. Glycoinositol phospholipids found in protozoan parasites of Leishmania sp. have a GPI with a conserved ``tetrasaccharide glycan core'' of galactofuranosyl(beta13)Man(alpha13)Man(alpha14)GlcN (reviewed in (26) and (29) ) and are cleaved by GPI-PLC(22) . This observation and the knowledge that PI is a very poor substrate suggested that GPI-PLC recognizes a glycan motif consisting minimally of Man(alpha14)GlcN(alpha16)Ins. We therefore focused on Man(alpha14)GlcN(alpha16)Ins as potentially having the requisites for GPI-PLC binding. Individual components of the protein-GPI core (Man, GlcN, Ins, and EtN, in all possible combinations) did not inhibit GPI-PLC, indicating that specific glycosidic bonds between the GPI components might be necessary for GPI-PLC recognition.

Glucosaminylinositol and its analogs inhibited GPI-PLC. GlcN(alpha16)Ins (VP-606) and GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate (VP-600L) were about equally inhibitory (Fig. 2), suggesting that 1) GlcN(alpha16)Ins is the major glycan determinant of GPI-PLC specificity, and 2) recognition of the phosphoryl group at the Ins 1-position is not critical for substrate binding. Interestingly, GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate (VP-601L) was a better inhibitor than GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate (VP-600L) ( Fig. 2and Table 1). GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate is found at the terminus of the EtN-phospho-6Man(alpha12) Man(alpha16)Man(alpha14)GlcN(alpha16)-myo-Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate group that is covalently linked to a cleaved protein after GPI-PLC action(2) . Thus, GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate (VP-601L) might be a product analog. Last, the innermost mannosyl residue of the conserved glycan core of protein-GPIs does not appear to play a critical role in GPI-PLC substrate recognition since Man(alpha14)GlcN(alpha16)Ins was only as effective as GlcN(alpha16)Ins.

Phosphonate derivatives of GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate (VP-600L) were more potent inhibitors, most likely because they are noncleavable substrate analogs. GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-dodecyl phosphonate (VP-604L) was more inhibitory than Ins 1-dodecyl phosphonate (VP-602L) ( Fig. 2and Table 1), attesting to the importance of the GlcN moiety in substrate recognition. Additionally, since GPI-PLC is associated with Nonidet P-40 micelles in our assays, one would predict that hydrophobic (and amphipathic) compounds would be better inhibitors because they would gain access to the enzyme more easily by associating initially with Nonidet P-40 micelles. If the phosphonate alkyl chain length is used as an indicator of hydrophobicity, the prediction is borne out. GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-dodecyl phosphonate (VP-604L), whose alkyl chain length is twice that of GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-hexyl phosphonate (VFT-2), is more inhibitory than VFT-2 (Fig. 2). Nevertheless, since GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins (VP-615L) was as effective as GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-dodecyl phosphonate (VP-604L), a compound need not have a hydrophobic moiety to be a good inhibitor.

An unmodified amino group on GlcN(alpha16)Ins is optimal for substrate recognition. Acetylation of the GlcN(alpha16)Ins amino group abolishes recognition because GlcNAc(alpha16)Ins (VC-105B) did not inhibit GPI-PLC (Fig. 2). This result is consistent with GlcNAc(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphodiacylglycerol being a poor substrate for the enzyme(27) . We rule out steric hindrance at the GPI-PLC active site, due to replacement of an amino hydrogen of GlcN(alpha16)Ins (VP-606) with an acetyl group, as the cause of GlcNAc(alpha16)Ins loss of inhibitory activity because VC-109B, which contains an N,N-dimethylcarbamyl group instead of the hydrogen on the amino group of GlcN, inhibits GPI-PLC better than GlcNAc(alpha16)Ins (Fig. 2). We do not have a simple structure-activity explanation for the VC-109B results.

Lack of inhibition by GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins 1-phosphate (VP-612L) as compared with GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate (VP-600L) raises the possibility that inhibition by GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate is enzyme-mediated. Possibly, GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate inhibits only after enzyme-catalyzed cyclization to GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate, the GPI-PLC product analog. In the absence of the hydroxyl at the Ins 2-position, cyclization is impossible; hence, GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins 1-phosphate is ineffective. Cyclization (possibly needed to eliminate the negative charge on the phosphate group) is not essential for inhibition when the phosphate at the Ins 1-position is removed from GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins 1-phosphate. Hence, GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins (VP-615L) is a potent inhibitor ( Fig. 2and Table 1). Specificity of these compounds is underscored by the lack of inhibition by GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-L-myo-inositol (VP-614L), the enantiomer of GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins (VP-615L) (Fig. 2).

The role of the Ins 2-hydroxyl and a requirement for the D-myo-inositol enantiomer in GPI-PLC substrate recognition are addressed by the effects of GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxyIns and GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-L-myo-inositol, respectively. GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins (VP-615L) inhibited GPI-PLC (Table 1), but GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-L-myo-inositol (VP-614L) had no effect. These results indicate that the Ins 2-hydroxyl is not required for substrate recognition, even though it is presumably needed for catalysis. The ineffectiveness of GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-L-myo-inositol (VP-614L) as compared with GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins establishes the ability of GPI-PLC to distinguish between L-myo-inositol and D-myo-inositol.

Inhibitory constants obtained for the Ins 1-phosphonates in this study were slightly better than, but in the same range as, those obtained in the inhibition of B. cereus PI-PLC by Ins 1-palmitoyl phosphonate(30) . To our knowledge, however, our work represents the first use of GlcN(alpha16)Ins and its derivatives as inhibitors of GPI phospholipases. If tested against other membrane-bound GPI-specific enzymes (e.g. phospholipases and glycosyltransferases), the inhibitory constants obtained are likely to be in the same range as reported here, mainly because the inhibition occurs at the interface between a micelle-bound enzyme and an aqueous soluble inhibitor.

Acidic Phospholipids Inhibit GPI-PLC

GPI-PLC was inhibited effectively by PI, PG, and PS (Table 1), but not by PE or PC. Since PI is a very poor substrate for GPI-PLC and the head groups of the inhibitory phospholipids are not structurally related, it is possible that PI and/or the other acidic phospholipids do not bind to the GPI-PLC active site. Instead, they might be allosteric regulators. Acidic phospholipids could modulate GPI-PLC in a fashion analogous to the effect of PS on protein kinase C (reviewed in (31) ). PI, PG, and PS are unlikely to cause desorption of GPI-PLC or membrane-form VSG from Nonidet P-40 micelles because, in the presence of the excess detergent in our assay, phospholipids are most likely simply incorporated into the detergent micelles(31, 32) .

Selective Inhibition and Stimulation of PI-PLC and GPI-PLC: Implications for Catalytic Mechanisms and Possible Allosteric Regulation

Three hydrophilic compounds, VP-612L, VP-614L, and VC-105B (Fig. 2), displayed remarkable specificity by inhibiting PI-PLC without inhibiting GPI-PLC (Table 1). GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins 1-phosphate (VP-612) did not inhibit GPI-PLC; hence, its ability to inhibit PI-PLC (Table 1) suggests a mechanism of glycan recognition distinct from that proposed earlier for GPI-PLC. Apparently, the Ins 2-hydroxyl is not required for PI-PLC binding to a glycan containing an Ins 1-phosphate, suggesting that formation of Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate is not necessary for inhibition of PI-PLC by GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate. This conclusion is supported by the ineffectiveness of GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate (VP-601L) (Table 1).

The Ins 1-phosphoryl group is very important for glycan recognition by PI-PLC. This inference is backed by the observation that GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate (VP-600L) competitively inhibits PI-PLC, while GlcN(alpha16)Ins (VP-606L) is completely ineffective (Table 1). (The identical phosphoryl group is not critical for GPI-PLC substrate recognition (see discussion above).) Possibly, abstraction of a proton from the Ins 2-hydroxyl is not an early event in PI-PLC cleavage of GPIs. Instead, attack on the phosphoryl group by an active-site nucleophile might lead to formation of a pentacoordinate enzyme-phosphoinositol glycan intermediate, which collapses subsequently to GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1,2-cyclic phosphate and finally to GlcN(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphate. It has been suggested that one of the paths toward cleavage of PI by mammalian PI phospholipases C involves formation of an enzyme-phosphoinositol intermediate(33) , similar to that proposed here for PI-PLC.

Other differences in the effects of the GlcN(alpha16)Ins derivatives include the following. 1) GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-L-myo-inositol (VP-614L) inhibits PI-PLC, but has little effect against GPI-PLC (Table 1). 2) GlcNAc(alpha16)Ins (VC-105B) is effective only against PI-PLC (Table 1). 3) G418 stimulates PI-PLC only (Fig. 4). 4) Acidic phospholipids inhibit GPI-PLC without exerting a significant effect on PI-PLC.

We conclude that PI-PLC binds glycans containing either D-myo-Ins or L-myo-Ins, unlike GPI-PLC, which appears to bind glycans containing D-myo-Ins only. Furthermore, since the inhibition of PI-PLC by GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-Ins 1-phosphate (VP-612L) and GlcN(alpha16)-2-deoxy-L-myo-inositol (VP-614L) was not competitive, our data raise the possibility of allosteric regulation of PI-PLC at a novel carbohydrate-binding site. In this regard, the aminoglycosides G418 and gentamicin could stimulate PI-PLC by binding to a regulatory site analogous to the proposed allosteric site occupied by hydrophilic glycans. Consistent with this latter hypothesis, G418 reverses a GPI-negative phenotype in some mammalian cells by uncharacterized mechanisms(34) . Our data on PI-PLC suggest that G418 could bind an enzyme in the GPI biosynthesis/regulatory pathway and cause reversal of the GPI-negative phenotype. Inhibition of PI-PLC by GlcNAc(alpha16)Ins is consistent with GlcNAc(alpha16)Ins 1-phosphodiacylglycerol being a substrate for the enzyme(35) .

Regulation of GPI-PLC by acidic phospholipids in vivo is an intriguing possibility. GPI-PLC is a cytoplasmic membrane protein that cleaves GPI precursors in vitro. Yet, in T. brucei, where the enzyme is endogenous, GPI-PLC does not cause a depletion of GPI biosynthetic intermediates, even though it appears to colocalize with GPI intermediates on the cytoplasmic side of intracellular membranes, where GPI biosynthesis is initiated(22, 36) . How could GPI-PLC be prevented from catabolizing GPI intermediates in T. brucei? If inhibition by PI occurred in vivo (presumably at a lower concentration of PI since detergent is absent), GPI-PLC might be prevented from cleaving GPI intermediates in PI-enriched intracellular membrane microdomains where GPI biosynthesis might be initiated.

In summary, details of GPI recognition differ between GPI-PLC and PI-PLC. The remarkable contrasts in sensitivity of the two enzymes to some GlcN(alpha16)Ins derivatives and gentamicins during cleavage of the identical GPI phosphodiester suggest the existence of mechanistic subclasses of GPI phospholipases C, of which GPI-PLC and PI-PLC might be prototypes. Hence, GlcN(alpha16)Ins derivatives seem likely to be powerful tools for analyzing the mode of action of GPI phospholipases, and possibly GPI glycosyltransferases.


FOOTNOTES

*
This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health Grants AI 33383 (to K. M.-W.) and GM 47109 (to T.-Y. S.). The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore by hereby marked ``advertisement'' in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

§
Supported by National Institutes of Health Predoctoral Training Grant 1-T32-AIO-7322.

Supported by a Burroughs Wellcome Fund New Investigator Award in Molecular Parasitology. To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Cellular Biology, 724 Biological Sciences Bldg., University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. Tel.: 706-542-3355; Fax: 706-542-4271; mensawil{at}zookeeper.zoo.uga.edu.

(^1)
The abbreviations used are: VSG, variant surface glycoprotein; GPI, glycosylphosphatidylinositol; EtN, ethanolamine; Ins, D-myo-inositol; GPI-PLC, glycosylphosphatidylinositol phospholipase C; GlcN(alpha16) Ins, glucosaminyl(alpha16)-D-myo-inositol; PI, phosphatidylinositol; PC, phosphatidylcholine; PS, phosphatidylserine; PG, phosphatidylglycerol; PE, phosphatidylethanolamine; PI-PLC, phosphatidylinositol phospholipase C.

(^2)
L. Ping-Sheng and T.-Y. Shen, manuscript in preparation.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Drs. Ruth Furukawa and Marcus Fechheimer (University of Georgia) for invaluable comments on the manuscript. Compound VFT-2 was prepared by Dr. Frank Tagliaferri. VC-105B and VC-109B were synthesized by Dr. William K. Berlin. We thank Dr. Hai-Xiao Zhai for confirmatory structural and stereochemical assignments.


REFERENCES

  1. Ferguson, M. A. J., Homans, S. W., Dwek, R. A., and Rademacher, T. W. (1988) Science 239, 753-759 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Ferguson, M. A. J., Low, M. G., and Cross, G. A. M. (1985) J. Biol. Chem. 260, 14547-14555 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Hereld, D., Krakow, J. L., Bangs, J. D., Hart, G. W., and Englund, P. T. (1986) J. Biol. Chem. 261, 13813-13819 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Fox, J. A., Duszenko, M., Ferguson, M. A., Low, M. G., and Cross, G. A. M. (1986) J. Biol. Chem. 261, 15767-15771 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Bülow, R., and Overath, P. (1986) J. Biol. Chem. 261, 11918-11923 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Mensa-Wilmot, K., and Englund, P. T. (1992) Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 56, 311-322 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Masterson, W. J., Doering, T. L., Hart, G. W., and Englund, P. T. (1989) Cell 56, 793-800 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Carrington, M., Walters, D., and Webb, H. (1991) Cell Biol. Int. Rep. 15, 1101-1114 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Mensa-Wilmot, K., Doering, T. L., Raper, J., Buxbaum, L., Hart, G. W., and Englund, P. T. (1991) in Molecular and Immunological Aspects of Parasitism (Wang, C. C., ed) pp. 43-54, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D. C.
  10. Low, M. G. (1992) in Lipid Modification of Proteins: A Practical Approach (Hooper, N. M., and Turner, A. J., eds) pp. 117-154, IRL Press, Oxford
  11. Henner, D. J., Yang, M., Chen, E., Hellmiss, R., Rodriguez, H., and Low, M. G. (1988) Nucleic Acids Res. 16, 10383 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Griffith, O. H., Volwerk, J. J., and Kuppe, A. (1991) Methods Enzymol. 197, 493-502 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Kuppe, A., Evans, L. M., McMillen, D. A., and Griffith, O. H. (1989) J. Bacteriol. 171, 6077-6083 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Mensa-Wilmot, K., Morris, J. C., Al-Qahtani, A., and Englund, P. T. (1995) Methods Enzymol. , in press
  15. Plourde, R., d'Alarcao, M., and Saltiel, A. R. (1992) J. Org. Chem. 57, 2606-2610
  16. Berlin, W. K., Zhang, W. S., and Shen, T. Y. (1991) Tetrahedron 47, 1-20 [CrossRef]
  17. Vacca, J. P., deSolms, S. J., Huff, J. R., Bullington, D. C., Bayker, R., Kulagowski, J. J., and Mawer, I. M. (1989) Tetrahedron 45, 5679-5702 [CrossRef]
  18. Ames, B. N. (1966) Methods Enzymol. 8, 115-118
  19. Volwerk, J. J., Filthuth, E., Griffith, O. H., and Jain, M. K. (1994) Biochemistry 33, 3464-3474 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Berg, O. G., Yu, B. Z., Rogers, J., and Jain, M. K. (1991) Biochemistry 30, 7283-7297 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Jain, M. K., Yuan, W., and Gelb, M. H. (1989) Biochemistry 28, 4135-4139 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Mensa-Wilmot, K., LeBowitz, J. H., Chang, K. P., Al-Qahtani, A., McGwire, B. S., Tucker, S., and Morris, J. C. (1994) J. Cell Biol. 124, 935-947 [Abstract]
  23. Jain, M. K., Rogers, J., Hendrickson, H. S., and Berg, O. G. (1993) Biochemistry 32, 8360-8367 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Volwerk, J. J., Shashidar, M. S., Kuppe, A., and Griffith, O. H. (1990) Biochemistry 29, 8056-8062 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Englund, P. T. (1993) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 62, 121-138 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. McConville, M. J., and Ferguson, M. A. J. (1993) Biochem. J. 294, 305-324 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Doering, T. L., Masterson, W. J., Englund, P. T., and Hart, G. W. (1989) J. Biol. Chem. 264, 11168-11173 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Krakow, J. L., Doering, T. L., Masterson, W. J., Hart, G. W., and Englund, P. T. (1989) Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 36, 263-270 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Turco, S. J., and Descoteaux, A. (1992) Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 46, 65-94 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Shashidhar, M. S., Volwerk, J. J., Keana, J. F. W., and Griffith, O. H. (1990) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1042, 410-412 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Newton, A. C. (1993) Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 22, 1-25 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Robson, R. J., and Dennis, E. A. (1978) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 508, 513-524 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Bruzik, K. S., Morocho, A. M., Jhon, D. Y., Rhee, S. G., and Tsai, M. D. (1992) Biochemistry 31, 5183-5193 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Gupta, D., Tartakoff, A., and Tisdale, E. (1988) Science 242, 1446-1448 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Stevens, V., and Raetz, C. R. H. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 10039-10042 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Vidugiriene, J., and Menon, A. K. (1994) J. Cell Biol. 127, 333-341 [Abstract]

©1995 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.