From the Unidad de Biofísica (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas-UPV/EHU), and Departamento de Bioquímica, Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, Aptdo. 644, Bilbao 48080, Spain
Received for publication, July 28, 2000, and in revised form, December 18, 2000
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Escherichia coli Several pathogenic Gram-negative bacteria belonging to the genera
Escherichia, Pasteurella, Bordetella,
Morganella, or Actinobacillus produce and secrete
102-177-kDa toxic polypeptides that may become inserted into
eukaryotic plasma membranes, leading to cell function impairment and
eventually cell lysis (1). These toxins have been designated as the
"RTX toxin family" on the basis of a common structural motif,
namely a nonapeptide repeat, in the C-terminal part of the molecules.
Despite their similarities, members of the RTX family differ in cell
target specificity. Whether the origin of this difference lies in the
existence of different receptors is just beginning to be clarified.
Results obtained with model phospholipid membranes for many of these
toxins (6-9) show that their lytic effects can be mimicked in the
absence of a specific receptor. However, Lally et al. (10)
showed that an integrin on the surface of human cells could be
implicated in the recognition by Actinobacillus and
Escherichia hemolysins. More recently, the CD18 component of
HlyA from E. coli belongs to the class of wide range host
cell specificity toxins, and it has been reported to act on a variety of cell types from many species such as red blood cells, chicken embryo
fibroblasts, rabbit granulocytes, mouse fibroblasts, lymphocytes, and
macrophages (12). The cell type classically used for studies on the
mechanism of action of HlyA has been the erythrocyte, but to date no
receptor for the toxin in red blood cells has been reported. In fact,
the binding studies by Eberspächer et al. (13) using
rabbit erythrocytes failed to show saturation, which was interpreted as
HlyA binding nonspecifically lipids in the bilayer, although these
authors did not exclude the possibility that their results might also
be due to lack of saturation of receptors. The existence of a receptor
has been hypothesized by Ludwig et al. (14) to explain some
of their results. According to these authors, calcium was required for
the lytic action of HlyA on erythrocytes but not on asolectin
membranes. They concluded that the asolectin membrane did not contain
the receptor to which the repeat domain of HlyA binds only in the
presence of calcium in the erythrocyte membrane, but they did not
demonstrate the existence of such a receptor. More recently, Bauer and
Welch (15) described the saturable binding of hemolysin to sheep red
blood cells with a maximum of 1000-2000 molecules/cell, thus
challenging the concept of nonspecific binding to the cell surface by
RTX toxins.
In the present work, we have explored the putative role of glycophorin,
an erythrocyte integral membrane protein, as a HlyA receptor. Our
experiments have included intact and protease-treated erythrocytes and
included liposomes (large unilamellar vesicles) with or without
reconstituted glycophorin. We have found that hemolysin binds to
glycophorin in erythrocytes, that this binding is abolished by
trypsinization of the membranes, and that glycophorin purified from
erythrocyte ghosts and reconstituted in liposomes increases
significantly their sensitivity to the HlyA action. We conclude that
glycophorin acts as a receptor for the toxin in this cell type.
Materials
Egg phosphatidylcholine was obtained from Lipid Products (South
Nutfield, United Kingdom). Neuraminidase (from Clostridium perfringens), trypsin (from bovine pancreas), Methods
Purification of Glycophorin
Glycophorin from horse erythrocyte ghosts was purified according
to a modification of the method described by Hamaguchi and Cleve (16).
Lyophilized ghosts were suspended in 10 mM Tris (pH 7.4)
and extracted with 9 volumes of chloroform/methanol (2:1). After
removal of the chloroform/methanol, 9 volumes of ethanol were added to
the collected water phases, resulting in a clear solution.
Subsequently, 0.1 volume of a 0.1 M Tris, 10 mM
EDTA (pH 7.4) solution was added, which resulted in precipitation of the glycoprotein. After centrifugation (16,500 × g, 30 min, 4 °C) the protein was redissolved in distilled water and
dialyzed against 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 9.0) and subsequently
against 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4) and distilled water, prior
to lyophilization. Final purification was achieved by extraction with a
50% phenol solution in water at low protein concentration and at room
temperature, followed by centrifugation (65,000 × g,
1 h, 0 °C).
Incorporation of Glycophorin in Lipid Bilayers
Glycophorin was reconstituted in lipid vesicles by the method of
MacDonald and MacDonald (17). Lyophilized glycophorin was dissolved in
1 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4, and 225 volumes of
chloroform/methanol (2:1) were added. Egg phosphatidylcholine (PC)
dissolved in the same solvent was evaporated to dryness together with
the glycoprotein to form a dry lipid-protein film. Then the film was
placed in a vacuum pump for at least 1 h to evaporate traces of
solvent. The film was then hydrated with 12.5 mM
8-aminonaphthalene-1,2,3-trisulfonic acid, 45 mM
p-xylene bis(pyridinium bromide), 20 mM
Tris-HCl, 70 mM NaCl, (pH 7.4). To remove multilamellar
structures containing little no or protein, the suspension was
centrifuged at 10,000 × g for 10 min at 4 °C, and
the pellet was discarded. Finally, a Sepharose 2B-300 column (1 × 15 cm; Sigma) was used to remove glycophorin and dye not incorporated
into the vesicles.
Vesicle Sizing by Quasielastic Light Scattering
The size of the reconstituted vesicles and of the control
protein-free liposomes was characterized by quasielastic light
scattering using a Malvern Zeta-Sizer spectrometer.
Determination of Vesicle-bound Glycophorin
To determine the recovery of glycophorin in the reconstituted
vesicles, a modification of the resorcinol-sialic acid assay was used
according to van Zoelen et al. (18). The standard curve was
constructed with sialic acid and the same amount of lipid present in
the assay vesicle aliquots. Sample aliquots were diluted to a standard
volume of 0.5 ml with distilled water. 0.5 ml of resorcinol reagent,
prepared as described by van Zoelen et al. (18), was added
to each test tube. The tubes were placed in a boiling water bath for 20 min. The samples were allowed to cool to room temperature, and 1.25 ml
of n-butyl acetate/1-butanol (85:15, v/v) were added
with vortexing. The samples were then centrifuged for 10 min in a
clinical centrifuge. The upper organic phase was transferred to glass
cuvettes, and absorbance was read at 580 nm.
Trypsin Treatment of Proteoliposomes
Glycophorin-containing vesicles were incubated for 24 h at
room temperature with continuous stirring in the presence of 1 mg/ml
trypsin. After incubation, the liposomes were pelleted by centrifugation (125,000 × g, 60 min, 4 °C) and
resuspended in fresh 20 mM Tris-HCl, 150 mM
NaCl (pH 7.4) buffer. The sialic acid content of the treated liposomes
was measured as described above.
Enzymic Treatments of Horse Erythrocytes
Erythrocytes were treated with trypsin (1 mg/ml), chymotrypsin
(1 mg/ml), or neuraminidase (2.2 units/ml) at 37 °C for 1 h. After incubation, the cells were washed several times to remove the
enzymes. The sialic acid content of the cells was tested after the
treatment in each case.
Hemolysis Assay
A standard red blood cell suspension was used, obtained by
diluting the erythrocytes with saline so that 37.5 µl of the mixture in 3 ml of distilled water gave an absorbance of 0.6 at 412 nm. Equal
volumes of the standard suspension of washed horse erythrocytes were
added to serial 2-fold dilutions of hemolysin in buffer (150 mM NaCl, 10 mM CaCl2, 20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.0). The mixtures were incubated at
37 °C for 45 min and then left at room temperature for a few hours,
so that erythrocyte sedimentation occurred. The absorbance of the
supernatants, appropriately diluted with distilled water, was read at
412 nm. The blank (zero hemolysis) consisted of a mixture of equal
volumes of buffer and erythrocytes.
Liposome Leakage Assays
Liposome leakage was measured as vesicle contents leakage by
using the 8-aminonaphthalene-1,2,3-trisulfonic acid/p-xylene bis(pyridinium bromide) system according to Ellens et al.
(19). For that purpose, large unilamellar vesicles (LUV) were prepared by extrusion using Nuclepore membranes as described by Mayer
et al. (20). Liposomes contained 12.5 mM
8-aminonaphthalene-1,2,3-trisulfonic acid, 45 mM
p-xylene bis(pyridinium bromide), 20 mM
Tris-HCl, 70 mM NaCl, (pH 7.0). Liposomes were separated
from unencapsulated material by column chromatography on Sephadex G-75
using 20 mM Tris-HCl, 150 mM NaCl (pH 7.0) as
the elution buffer.
Hemolysin Binding to Erythrocytes
For the standard binding assay, 1 × 109
cells/ml were incubated with purified toxin for 15 min at 37 °C and
then collected by centrifugation at 16,000 × g for 15 min at room temperature and washed with 5 mM phosphate
buffer (pH 8.0). The pellet was then resuspended with 2× sample buffer
for electrophoresis and heated for 10 min at 100 °C. Cell-associated
toxins were quantified in immunoblots by comparing densitometric scans
of bound toxin signals with calibrated signals of varying amounts of
purified toxin electrophoresed and blotted under identical conditions. The binding data were analyzed using an equation described by Gutfreund
(21) that relates the fractional saturation Y (equivalent to
bound HlyA/maximal bound HlyA) with the total concentration of toxin as
follows.
Immunoblotting Analysis
Samples from SDS-polyacrylamide gels were transferred to
nitrocellulose by the method of Towbin et al. (22). Blots
were blocked with 10% skim milk in TBST buffer (10 mM
Tris-HCl, 150 mM NaCl, 0.05% Tween 20 (w/v), pH 7.5) for
1 h at room temperature. They were then incubated with a solution
containing a polyclonal rabbit anti-hemolysin (or anti-glycophorin)
antibody (1:1000) in 5% skim milk/TBST overnight at 4 °C, washed
with TBST buffer, and finally reacted with peroxidase-conjugated
anti-rabbit Ig antibody (Sigma) (1:2000) in TBST buffer with 5% skim
milk for 1 h at room temperature.
Immunoblots were developed by a femtogram sensitivity chemiluminescent
method (Super Signal West femto maximum sensitivity substrate; Pierce).
Binding of HlyA to Glycophorin
HlyA Binding to a Hi-Trap Affinity Column--
An
N-hydroxysuccinimide-activated Hi-Trap column (1 ml) from
Amersham Pharmacia Biotech was used to bind purified hemolysin. The
column was first washed three times (3 × 2 ml) with cold 1 mM HCl to remove isopropyl alcohol. Then the purified
protein solution (500 µg/ml) prepared in the coupling buffer (0.2 M NaHCO3, 0.5 M NaCl, 6 M urea, pH 8.3) was added and left overnight at 4 °C.
Note that HlyA is stable in 6 M urea (23). The deactivation of any excess active groups that had not coupled to the ligand protein
and the washing out of the nonspecifically bound ligands were performed
following exactly the procedure described by the supplier.
Erythrocyte Membrane Solubilization--
Erythrocyte ghosts (2 mg/ml) diluted in 20 mM NaHCO3, 150 mM NaCl, pH 8.3, buffer were used and treated with 1%
(w/v) deoxycholate, 500 mM NaCl for 1 h at 4 °C
with gentle rocking, followed by centrifugation (100,000 × g, 1 h, 4 °C). The supernatant was recovered.
Binding Assay--
Deoxycholate extracts of horse erythrocyte
ghosts (1 mg/ml) were injected into the derivatized affinity column and
left incubating for 1 h at 25 °C. After this incubation, the
column was washed with 4 volumes of 20 mM
NaHCO3, 150 mM NaCl, pH 8.3, buffer to eliminate unbound proteins. Elution of the bound protein was performed by lowering the pH to 3.0 (0.1 M glycine, 150 mM NaCl, pH 3.0, buffer). The eluted fractions were
concentrated, and pH was adjusted to neutrality. To visualize the
protein, SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and immunoblotting were
performed as described previously using anti-glycophorin antibodies and
ECL reagent (Western blotting detection reagent) from Amersham
Pharmacia Biotech.
Antibody Preparation
Hemolysin (or glycophorin) was boiled for 3 min in
electrophoresis buffer and subjected to preparative scale
SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. A section of the gel containing
the protein band (~500 µg of protein) was treated as
indicated in Rivas et al. (24) and injected into New Zealand
White rabbits to raise hemolysin (or glycophorin)-specific antiserum,
which jointly with horseradish peroxidase-conjugated
anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G was used to visualize hemolysin (or
glycophorin) by immunoblotting.
Protection against Hemolysis by Anti-glycophorin Antibodies
A polyclonal anti-glycophorin serum obtained as described above
was cleaned with a Hi-Trap Protein G column (1 ml; Amersham Pharmacia
Biotech) equilibrated with phosphate buffer (20 mM
phosphate, pH 7.0). 0.5-ml serum samples were applied, and the retained
antibodies were then eluted with 0.1 M glycine, pH 2.7, buffer. The pH of the collected fractions (14 ml) was raised to pH
7.0.
RBC standardized at A412 = 0.6 were incubated
for 1 h at room temperature with the anti-glycophorin antibodies
(dilution 1:2.5). After incubation, the treated erythrocytes were
washed three times with 20 mM Tris, 150 mM
NaCl, pH 7.0, buffer, and then a typical hemolysis assay was performed
adding the toxin.
In a parallel assay, the RBC were treated with preimmune serum in the
same way as described above.
When the lytic activity of HlyA was tested under similar
conditions for both erythrocytes and liposomes (large unilamellar vesicles), in suspensions containing equal phospholipid concentrations, the dose-response curves showed a much higher sensitivity
(over 1 order of magnitude) for the red
blood cells (Fig. 1 and Table I). The sensitivity of LUV varies with
lipid composition, but the one used in the experiment shown in Fig. 1
provides LUV with highest sensitivity toward HlyA. Specifically,
liposomes made of total red blood cell lipids or of a lipid mixture
representing the cells outer lipid leaflet were even less sensitive
(6). One reason that could explain the superior sensitivity of the cells would be the presence of a surface receptor. To test this possibility, erythrocytes were treated with trypsin under controlled conditions. An assay of HlyA-induced lysis on trypsinized erythrocytes revealed that their sensitivity had decreased to the level of liposomes
(Fig. 2 and Table I). This was a strong
indication in favor of a protein receptor for HlyA on the erythrocyte
surface.
-hemolysin (HlyA)
can lyse both red blood cells (RBC) and liposomes. However, the cells
are lysed at HlyA concentrations 1-2 orders of magnitude lower than
liposomes (large unilamellar vesicles). Treatment of RBC with trypsin,
but not with chymotrypsin, reduces the sensitivity of RBC toward HlyA to the level of the liposomes. Since glycophorin, one of the main proteins in the RBC surface, can be hydrolyzed by trypsin much more
readily than by chymotrypsin, the possibility was tested of a specific
binding of HlyA to glycophorin. With this purpose, a number of
experiments were performed. (a) HlyA was preincubated with
purified glycophorin, after which it was found to be inactive against
both RBC and liposomes. (b) Treatment of RBC with an
anti-glycophorin antibody protected the cells against HlyA lysis.
(c) Immobilized HlyA was able to bind glycophorin present
in a detergent lysate of RBC ghosts. (d) Incorporation of
glycophorin into pure phosphatidylcholine liposomes increased
notoriously the sensitivity of the vesicles toward HlyA.
(e) Treatment of the glycophorin-containing liposomes with
trypsin reverted the vesicles to their original low sensitivity. The
above results are interpreted in terms of glycophorin acting as a
receptor for HlyA in RBC. The binding constant of HlyA for glycophorin
was estimated, in RBC at sublytic HlyA concentrations, to be 1.5 × 10
9 M.
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-Hemolysin (HlyA)1 from
Escherichia coli is the prototype of this toxin family. Their members must undergo a transformation from a water-soluble to an
insoluble, membrane-bound form to exert their effect on the target cell
(for reviews, see Refs. 2-5).
2-integrin has been identified as a bovine-specific,
leukocyte-specific receptor for Pasteurella hemolytica
leukotoxin, a highly specific RTX toxin (11).
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
chymotrypsin
(from bovine pancreas), and glycosidase F (from Flavobacterium
meningosepticum) were all obtained from Sigma. Horse erythrocytes
were purchased from Microlab (Madrid, Spain).
8-aminonaphthalene-1,2,3-trisulfonic acid and
p-xylene bis(pyridinium bromide) were from Molecular Probes,
Inc. (Eugene, OR). Purified human glycophorin and an antibody against
human glycophorin A were purchased from Sigma.
The equation holds for the case of a toxin binding to a
single class of sites. In this case, the slope provides an estimate of
the dissociation constant Kd of the toxin-receptor complex, while the intersection with the x axis gives
(Eq. 1)
,
the concentration of the binding sites.
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
View larger version (13K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Dose-response curve for sensitivity of RBC
toward hemolysis and sensitivity of LUV toward leakage, caused by the
protein toxin HlyA. In both cases, phospholipid concentration was
100 µM, corresponding for RBC to a standard suspension of
A412 = 0.60.
A comparative study of the sensitivity of cells and liposomes
towards -hemolysin
View larger version (12K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Dose-response curve for sensitivity of
control (RBC) and trypsin-treated (RBC + Trypsin) red blood cells toward hemolysis
caused by the protein toxin HlyA. In both cases, phospholipid
concentration was 100 µM.
A further clue was provided by the fact that red blood cell sensitivity to HlyA was not decreased when cells were treated with chymotrypsin (Table I). Glycophorin, a major integral membrane protein on the red blood cell surface, is known to be sensitive to trypsin digestion (25, 26) but resistant to chymotrypsin (27, 28). Since glycophorin contains 60 weight % carbohydrate, including ~30 sialic acid residues per protein molecule (29), hemolysin was assayed on red blood cells incubated with either neuraminidase or glycosidase F. Under our conditions, neuraminidase released virtually all of the protein neuraminic acid. However, these carbohydrate-cleaving enzymes did not modify significantly the sensitivity of red blood cells toward HlyA (Table I), indicating that the integrity of the sugar moiety in the putative receptor was not essential for the lytic action of the toxin.
In a further series of experiments, HlyA was incubated with purified
glycophorin and then added to either liposomes (Fig. 3A) or red blood cells (Fig.
3B). In both cases, binding of free glycophorin to HlyA
decreased, and eventually abolished, the toxin lytic effect. The
dose-dependent character of this effect is shown in Fig.
3B for the inhibition of hemolysis. The high
glycophorin/HlyA molar proportion required for completely abolishing
hemolysis was probably the consequence of an intrinsic tendency to
aggregation by glycophorin (30). A qualitatively similar inhibition was observed when HlyA was preincubated with varying concentrations of a
commercial preparation of human glycophorin (not shown).
|
The identity of the receptor with glycophorin was confirmed by an
experiment in which horse erythrocytes were treated with an
anti-glycophorin polyclonal antibody and then with HlyA. The results
(Fig. 4) showed that, in the range of low
toxin concentrations at which nonspecific binding to the bilayer does
not occur (see Fig. 2), the antibody provided protection against lysis.
Higher HlyA concentrations presumably displaced the antibody, since
they both competed for the same receptor, and lysis was restored.
Alternatively, the higher HlyA concentrations could be using the
membrane lipid as target. RBC treatment with a preimmune serum did not
provide any protection against HlyA challenge (Fig. 4). Very similar
results were observed when human RBC were incubated first with an
anti-human glycophorin A antibody and then with hemolysin (not
shown).
|
The specific binding of HlyA to glycophorin was demonstrated by an
experiment in which red blood cell membranes were solubilized by 1%
deoxycholate. The solubilized extract was then passed through a Hi-Trap
affinity column containing bound HlyA. After repeated washing with
buffer to remove unbound material, the column was eluted with a low pH
buffer. The eluted fractions were concentrated, brought to neutral pH,
and subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and
immunoblotting. The results are shown in Fig. 5. Glycophorin was retained by the HlyA
affinity column (lane 3), and when the
deoxycholate extract was incubated with an excess HlyA prior to its
passage through the column, no binding was detected (lane
4).
|
Purified glycophorin was then reconstituted into pure PC bilayers as
described under "Experimental Procedures." The resulting vesicles
were about 400 nm in diameter, after quasielastic light scattering
measurements, and the lipid/protein molar ratio was ~1100:1. As a
control, pure PC vesicles were prepared by extrusion through 400-nm
pore filters. The results of lysis assays performed with these
liposomes are shown in Fig. 6.
Incorporation of glycophorin into PC bilayers rendered the vesicles
much more sensitive to HlyA, the difference being of 1 order of
magnitude, similar to what was found for red blood cells in comparison
with PC/PE/cholesterol liposomes (see Table I for the absolute
D50 values). Note that PC bilayers are intrinsically more
resistant to HlyA than those composed of PC/PE/cholesterol (6).
Pure PC was used for glycophorin reconstitution to obtain more
homogeneous lipoprotein preparations. As a further control, liposomes
containing reconstituted glycophorin were treated with trypsin as
indicated under "Experimental Procedures." When treated with HlyA,
trypsinized proteoliposomes became much less sensitive to the toxin, as
indicated in Table I.
|
Precise determination of binding constants for glycophorin and HlyA (or
for any RTX toxin receptor) is prevented by the fact that, since the
toxin can also bind and lyse pure lipid bilayers, the classical
experiments in which an excess of unlabeled ligand is added to displace
nonspecifically bound labeled ligand are not feasible (10). A good
estimate, however, could be obtained by measuring binding at low toxin
concentration, under conditions where presumably nonreceptor-mediated
binding to the lipid bilayer is negligible. This was achieved by
incubating red blood cells with increasing amounts of HlyA, washing as
indicated under "Experimental Procedures," and separating the
proteins by electrophoresis. The toxin was then quantified using a high
sensitivity chemiluminescent method, by comparison with known standards
treated in exactly the same way. A representative experiment is shown
in Fig. 7. Binding appeared to increase
hyperbolically with total toxin concentration. A derived plot according
to Gutfreund (21) provided a straight line for the range of toxin
concentrations under study. This plot was no longer linear for HlyA
concentrations above 10 nM, probably because then
nonreceptor-mediated binding became significant. The apparent binding
parameters obtained using this procedure were as follows:
Ks = 1.5 ± 0.8 × 109 M and number of receptors per
cell 3584 ± 284 (average values ± S.D.; n = 3).
|
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The nature and even the existence of a receptor for E. coli HlyA in eukaryotic cells have been the object of some debate. The findings of high lytic activities of the toxin on pure lipid vesicles and bilayers (6, 8) indicated that no protein receptor was
essential for the lytic effects of HlyA to be shown. More recent data
by Lally et al. (10) and Li et al. (11) have
demonstrated that HlyA and other RTX toxins recognize a specific
protein, a 2-integrin, on the surface of human target
cells. In the present paper, we have shown that, in the presence of
glycophorin, lipid bilayers become more sensitive to HlyA by over an
order of magnitude and that HlyA binds with high affinity to red blood
cells containing glycophorin. Thus, glycophorin appears to act as a
receptor for HlyA, notwithstanding the fact that the toxin can also
bind the membrane lipid matrix in the absence of receptors. Several
isoforms and multiple variants of glycophorin are known (reviewed in
Refs. 31 and 32), but no attempts have been made by us at this stage to
analyze separately their HlyA binding abilities.
Other bacterial toxins share with HlyA its capacity to bind membranes with or without a receptor, in the latter case, of course, at higher concentrations. A particularly good parallelism between rather different toxins exists between HlyA and aerolysin, a channel-forming, non-RTX toxin from Aeromonas spp. Aerolysin will lyse liposomes, at concentrations 2-3 orders of magnitude higher than RBC, and human glycophorin works as a receptor for this toxin (33, 34). Recently, Vibrio cholerae E1 Tor hemolysin, also a non-RTX toxin, has been shown to recognize glycophorin B of human erythrocytes (35).
According to our measurements, the apparent number of receptors per cell is ~3500. This figure is similar to the one proposed by Bauer and Welch (15) (~2000) but lower than the figure given by Eberspächer et al. (13) (up to 50,000). The reason for the discrepancy is probably found in the procedures used. In our case, the binding experiments have been performed, by design, at sublytic toxin concentrations, and the same is true of the measurements by Bauer and Welch (15). Eberspächer et al. (13), on the other hand, measured binding under lytic conditions. Thus, our figure represents probably the maximum number of receptors that can be occupied without cell lysis taking place under our conditions. In turn, this shows that a (large) number of HlyA molecules may bind the cell without producing lysis. The pathway from receptor binding to cell lesion is still to be explored, but the results by Moayeri and Welch (36), showing a different conformation for hemolysin when bound in a nonlytic (at 2 °C) or a lytic conformation, are interesting in this context.
Both glycophorin and 2-integrin are transmembrane,
glycosylated proteins, that form homo- or heterodimers (27, 37, 38). However, they do not seem to have any significant degree of sequence homology.2 Nevertheless, it
should be noted that they are both cytoskeleton-linked proteins. (See
in particular Ref. 32 for the association between glycophorin A and
skeleton proteins.) This may be related to early ultrastructural
studies showing that HlyA-treated RBC lose their discoidal shape,
giving rise to spherocytes, with 10-20 small projections spaced over
the surface of the RBC (40). The latter authors found that the
microscopic observations were consistent with an effect on the
spectrin-actin cytoskeleton. More recently, receptor clustering, or
receptor segregation, has been postulated as a cytoskeleton-related
form of signaling (41). The possibility that the sublytic
effects of HlyA (i.e. leukotriene generation, phosphatidylinositol hydrolysis, cytokine release, or superoxide generation (42-46)) could be related to receptor segregation in the
cell surface, via cytoskeleton-anchored receptors, is worth considering.
Our study has not addressed the issue of the HlyA domain responsible for cell binding. This is an additional question that remains open. Ludwig et al. (14) suggested that the nonapeptide repeat in the protein would be responsible for receptor binding. Similarly, a mutant Pasteurella leukotoxin devoid of the amphipathic helices but conserving the acylated region as well as the repeat domain can bind and aggregate cells, but it does not cause lysis (47). While these data would be compatible with the idea of glycophorin as a receptor, Bauer and Welch (15) have indicated that several regions in the protein may be involved in cell binding. The latter concept can also explain the simultaneous presence of high and low affinity binding, respectively, to receptor protein and bilayer lipids. The polar nonapeptide repeat region would bind the receptor, and the nonpolar parts could interact directly with the lipid bilayer. One such nonpolar region is formed by the two acyl residues in active HlyA (linked covalently to Lys564 and Lys690) (48). The fatty acyl chains appear to be essential for insertion of HlyA into the lipid bilayer in a lytic conformation (49). Doubly lipid-modified protein motifs exhibit excellent membrane-anchoring features (50). It is interesting in this context that several Pseudomonas proteins are driven to eukaryotic plasma targets by fatty acylation (51).
A further point for consideration is the fact that RBC from different
species present different susceptibilities to
HlyA.3 Since there is
interspecific variability in glycoprotein structure (30, 39), different
affinities for HlyA of the various glycophorins can be at the origin of
that phenomenon. Binding measurements with cells from different species
will be required to test this hypothesis.
![]() |
FOOTNOTES |
---|
* This work was supported by Direccion General de Investigacion Cientifica y Tecnica Grant PB96-0171, Basque Government Grant EX99/05, and University of the Basque Country Grant G03/98.The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Recipient of a fellowship from the Basque government.
§ To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 34-94-6012542; Fax: 34-94-4648850; E-mail: gbzoseth@lg.ehu.es.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, December 27, 2000, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M006792200
2 A. L. Cortajarena, F. M. Goñi, and H. Ostolaza, unpublished observations.
3 H. Ostolaza and F. M. Goñi, unpublished observations.
![]() |
ABBREVIATIONS |
---|
The abbreviations used are:
HlyA, -hemolysin;
PC, phosphatidylcholine;
LUV, large unilamellar vesicle(s);
RBC, red
blood cell(s);
PE, phosphatidylethanolamine.
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
1. | Coote, J. G. (1996) Rev. Med. Microbiol. 7, 53-62 |
2. | Coote, J. G. (1992) FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 88, 137-162 |
3. | Welch, R. A., Forestier, C., Lobo, A., Pellet, S., Thomas, W., Jr., and Rowe, G. (1992) FEMS Microbiol. Immunol. 105, 29-36 |
4. | Goñi, F. M., and Ostolaza, H. (1998) Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 31, 1019-1034[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
5. |
Stanley, P.,
Koronakis, V.,
and Hughes, C.
(1998)
Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.
62,
309-333 |
6. | Ostolaza, H., Bartolomé, B., Ortiz de Zárate, I., De la Cruz, F., and Goñi, F. M. (1993) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1141, 81-88[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
7. | Menestrina, G. (1988) FEBS Lett. 232, 217-220[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
8. | Benz, R., Schmid, A., Wagner, W., and Goebel, W. (1989) Infect. Immun. 57, 887-895[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
9. | Bhakdi, S., Mackman, N., Nicaud, J. M., and Holland, I. B. (1986) Infect. Immun. 52, 63-69[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
10. |
Lally, E. T.,
Kieba, I. R.,
Sato, A.,
Green, C. L.,
Rosenbloom, J.,
Korostoft, J.,
Wang, J. F.,
Shenker, B. L.,
Ortlepp, S.,
Robinson, M. K.,
and Billings, P. C.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
30463-30469 |
11. | Li, J., Clinkerbeard, K. D., and Ritchey, J. W. (1999) Vet. Microbiol. 67, 93-99 |
12. | Cavalieri, S. J., Bohach, G. A., and Snyder, I. S. (1984) Microb. Rev. 48, 326-343 |
13. | Eberspächer, B., Hugo, F., and Bhakdi, S. (1989) Infect. Immun. 57, 983-988[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
14. | Ludwig, A., Jarchau, T., Benz, R., and Goebel, W. (1988) Mol. Gen. Genet. 214, 553-561[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
15. | Bauer, M. E., and Welch, R. A. (1996) Infect. Immun. 64, 4665-4672[Abstract] |
16. | Hamaguchi, H., and Cleve, H. (1972) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 278, 271-280[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
17. | MacDonald, R. I., and MacDonald, R. C. (1975) J. Biol. Chem. 250, 9206-9214 |
18. | van Zoelen, E. J. J., Verkleij, A. J., Zwaal, F. A., and van Deenen, L. M. (1978) Eur. J. Biochem. 86, 539-546[Abstract] |
19. | Ellens, H., Bentz, J., and Szoka, F. C. (1985) Biochemistry 24, 3099-3106[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
20. | Mayer, L. D., Hope, M. J., and Cullis, P. R. (1986) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 858, 161-168[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
21. | Gutfreund, H. (1972) Enzymes: Physical Principles , p. 71, Wiley- Interscience, London |
22. | Towbin, H., Staehlin, T., and Gordon, J. (1979) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 76, 4350-4359[Abstract] |
23. | Soloaga, A., Ramirez, J. M., and Goñi, F. M. (1998) Biochemistry 37, 6387-6393[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
24. |
Rivas, S.,
Bolland, S.,
Cabezón, E.,
Goñi, F. M.,
and de la Cruz, F.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
25583-25590 |
25. | Steck, T. L., Ramos, B., and Strapazon, E. (1976) Biochemistry 15, 1153-1161[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
26. | Marchesi, V. T., Furthmayr, H., and Tomita, M. (1976) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 45, 667-698[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
27. | Bretscher, M. S. (1973) Science 181, 622-629[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
28. | Cabantchik, Z. I., and Rothstein, A. (1974) J. Membr. Biol. 15, 227-248[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
29. | Challou, N., Goormaghtigh, E., Cabiaux, V., Conrath, K., and Ruysschaert, J. M. (1994) Biochemistry 33, 6902-6910[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
30. | Springer, G. F., Nagai, Y., and Tegtmeyer, H. (1966) Biochemistry 5, 3254-3271[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
31. | Blumenfeld, O. O., and Huang, C. H. (1997) Transfus. Clin. Biol. 4, 357-365[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
32. | Chasis, J. A., and Mohandas, N. (1992) Blood 80, 1869-1879[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
33. | Howard, S. P., and Buckley, T. (1982) Biochemistry 21, 1662-1667[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
34. | Garland, W. J., and Buckley, T. (1988) Infect. Immun. 56, 1249-1253[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
35. |
Zhang, D. Y.,
Takahashi, J.,
Seno, T.,
Tani, Y.,
and Honda, T.
(1999)
Infect. Immun.
67,
5332-5337 |
36. | Moayeri, M., and Welch, R. A. (1997) Infect. Immun. 65, 2233-2239[Abstract] |
37. |
Smith, S. O.,
and Bormann, B. J.
(1995)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
92,
488-491 |
38. |
Huang, C.,
Lu, C.,
and Springer, T. A.
(1997)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
94,
3156-3161 |
39. | Duk, M., Krotkiewski, H., Stasyk, T. V., Lutsik-Kordovsky, M., Syper, D., and Lisowska, E. (2000) Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 375, 111-118[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
40. | Jorgensen, S. E., Hammer, R. F., and Wu, G. K. (1980) Infect. Immun. 27, 988-994[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
41. | Penninger, J. M., and Crabtree, G. R. (1999) Cell 96, 9-12[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
42. | Scheffer, J., Konig, W., Hacker, J., and Goebel, W. (1985) Infect. Immun. 50, 271-278[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
43. | Keane, W. F., Welch, R. A., Gekker, G., and Peterson, P. K. (1987) Am. J. Pathol. 126, 350-357[Abstract] |
44. | Grimminger, F., Walrath, D., Birkemeyer, R. G., Bhakdi, S., and Seeger, W. (1990) Infect. Immun. 58, 2659-2663[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
45. | Bhakdi, S., Muhly, M., Korom, S., and Schmidt, G. (1990) J. Clin. Invest. 85, 1746-1753[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
46. | Bhakdi, S., and Martin, E. (1991) Infect. Immun. 59, 2955-2962[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
47. | Cruz, W. T., Young, R., Chang, Y. F., and Struck, D. K. (1990) Mol. Microbiol. 4, 1933-1939[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
48. | Stanley, P., Packman, L. C., Koronakis, V., and Hughes, C. (1994) Science 266, 1992-1996[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
49. | Soloaga, A., Ostolaza, H., Goñi, F. M., and de la Cruz, F. (1996) Eur. J. Biochem. 238, 418-422[Abstract] |
50. | Shahinian, S., and Silvius, J. R. (1995) Biochemistry 34, 3813-3822[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
51. | Nimchuk, Z., Marois, E., Kjemtrup, S., Leister, R. T., Katagiri, F., and Dangl, J. L. (2000) Cell 101, 353-363[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |