ATF-PAI2CD融合蛋白基因在毕赤酵母中克隆、表达和鉴定

为了克隆尿激酶型纤溶酶原激活物 (uPA)的氨基末端片段与纤溶酶原激活剂抑制物 2型(PAI 2 )突变体所构成的融合蛋白基因 ,并在Pichiapastoris中表达 ,应用PCR获得了人ATF PAI2CD融合蛋白基因cDNA(简称ATF PAI2CD) ,将其克隆到酵母表达载体pPIC9K ,获得融合基因表达质粒pZWY ATF PAI2CD .该质粒转化毕赤酵母菌GS115 ,用G4 18 YPD平板筛选高拷贝转化子 ,然后用甲醇诱导表达 .工程菌用摇瓶发酵 ,表达产物ATF PAI2CD占培养液中总蛋白 5 0 %以上 .经硫酸铵沉淀、分子筛和离子交换层析纯化得到的目标表达产物纯度达 95 % .Western印迹检测具有PAI 2与uPA的免疫原性 ,经牛奶板法检测具有纤溶抑制活性 .经流式细胞仪 (FCM )检测 ,能与肿瘤细胞特异性结合 .结果表明 ,ATF PAI2CD融合蛋白成功地在毕赤酵母中表达 ,且具有抑制uPA及与肿瘤细胞表面uPAR特异性结合的双重功能 .提示该融合蛋白可能具有良好的应用前景 .     

人肾小球系膜细胞纤溶酶原激活物抑制物cDNA克隆和高效表达

利用逆转录 聚合酶链式反应 (RT- PCR)方法 ,从中国正常人肾小球系膜细胞总RNA中扩增出人纤溶酶原激活物抑制物 (PAI 1 )基因cDNA编码区序列 ,并定向亚克隆至pUC1 9质粒 ,克隆的PAI -1cDNA去除了信号肽核苷酸序列并加入新的起始密码ATG ,编码区序列与文献报道的人内皮细胞PAI -1cDNA序列完全相同 .将PAI -1cDNA定向亚克隆至原核表达质粒 pBV2 2 0 ,构建了重组PAI -1基因表达质粒pBV2 2 0 PAI -1 ,在大肠杆菌中得到了高效表达 ,重组PAI -1蛋白表达占菌体总蛋白 45 % .Westernblotting检测 ,在分子量约为 43.0ku处出现一特异性蛋白质条带 .对形成包涵体的表达产物进行变复性处理及FPLC纯化 ,获得纯度 97%以上的潜伏态重组PAI -1 .经 4mol/L盐酸胍激活后 ,重组PAI- 1具有与天然PAI- 1同样的生物学活性 ,对尿激酶型纤溶酶原激活物 (u- PA)具有显著抑制活性 .     

重组PAI－1在大肠杆菌中的高效表达

纤溶酶原激活物抑制因子－1(PAI—1)在天然状态下含量很低。为了进行PAI—l的结构与功能的研究,构建了表达重组PAI—l的质粒pBV22(I／PAI—l,并在大肠杆菌中得到了高效表达。最高表达量为菌体总蛋白量的49%以上。经Western blotting检测,得到了分子量为43．0kDa的反应条带。对形成包涵体的表达产物进行变、复性处理及Seplhadex G-75的初步纯化,得到了潜伏态的重组PAI—l。用纤维蛋白平板法和显色底物法,测定出经4mol／L盐酸胍激活后的重组PAI—l对尿型纤溶酶原激活物(u—PA)有明显的抑制活性。而且,激活后的重组Pal-1经过37℃处理,会逐渐转变为潜伏态。     

Lys_(10)-PAI-1融合蛋白在大肠杆菌中的表达、纯化和凝胶阻滞实验

用PCR方法构建 10个赖氨酸与纤溶酶原激活剂抑制物 1的融合基因Lys10 PAI 1,并克隆于pET2 8a(+ )和pET32a(+ )原核表达载体 .将重组表达质粒pET32 PAI和pET2 8 PAI转化大肠杆菌BL2 1(DE3) .IPTG诱导后可获得分子量分别为 6 3kD和 4 3kD的目的蛋白 ,表达蛋白占菌体蛋白2 0 %以上 ,大多数重组蛋白以不溶形式存在 .表达产物经变性、复性、超滤、透析和亲和层析等步骤 ,可以得到纯化的Trx·PAI 1和rPAI 1重组蛋白 .Western印迹结果表明 ,目的蛋白具有人PAI 1的抗原性 .凝胶阻滞实验发现 ,纯化的重组蛋白在一定条件下 ,可以与质粒结合 ,使质粒的迁移率明显改变 .研究结果表明 ,Trx·PAI 1和rPAI 1有希望成为受体介导基因转移的配体     

抗PAI抑制作用的纤溶酶原激活剂突变体的活性研究

目的:重组表达抗PAI抑制作用的t-PA突变体,经诱导表达、复性、纯化后进行生物学活性和酶动力学分析。方法:构建pBV220-tpa重组表达质粒,经DNA测序确认后,转化至大肠杆菌DH5a,温控诱导表达,凝胶过滤法对包涵体蛋白进行初步纯化,复性后,过刺桐胰蛋白酶亲和层析柱纯化,酶动力学分析其活性。结果:测序证实,t-PA突变体的DNA序列正确,表达蛋白占总菌体蛋白的30%,经纯化后纯度达90%以上,比活性为7.0×108IU/mg,t-PA突变体与PAI-1反应后,其活性未受到抑制。t-PA突变体酶的米氏常数Km为0.5298,最大水解速度Vmax为0.0595。结论:经生物学活性测定,表达蛋白能够明显抵抗PAI的抑制作用,并具有良好的生物活性,该突变体有可能成为用量更少、疗效更佳的新型溶栓药物。     

蛇毒纤溶酶Alfimeprase在大肠杆菌中的可溶表达和纯化

Alfimeprase是Fibrolase的突变体,是一种蛇毒纤溶酶,有纤溶活性而无出血性。根据Alfimeprase的氨基酸序列和大肠杆菌密码子偏爱性,利用PCR的方法合成Alfimeprase DNA序列,分别融合在NusA和MBP的C端,与分子伴侣FkpA在大肠杆菌Origami B(DE3)中共表达,融合蛋白NusA/Alfimeprase以部分可溶的形式存在,可溶部分占上清总蛋白的25%左右,通过镍柱亲合层析纯化和肠激酶切割得到具有纤溶活性的重组蛋白Alfimeprase。本研究是首次报道在大肠杆菌中可溶表达Alfimeprase,为以后深入研究其功能及应用奠定了基础。     

重组刺桐胰蛋白酶抑制剂a在大肠杆菌中的表达和纯化

为了大量制备重组刺桐胰蛋白酶抑制剂a(rETIa) ,对构建的基因工程菌株E .coliBL2 1(DE3)pET2 2b mETIa进行了表达条件的优化 .用摇瓶培养 ,rETIa蛋白占菌体总蛋白 4 0 %以上 .经破碎菌体 洗涤包涵体 溶解包涵体 复性初步纯化后 ,再经二步柱层析纯化获得电泳纯的rETIa蛋白 .测定了rETIa对胰蛋白酶、胰凝乳蛋白酶、组织型纤溶酶原激活因子缺失突变体 (NTA)的抑制活性 .     

人微小纤溶酶原基因的克隆和表达

用PCR方法扩增人微小纤溶酶原(Microplasmingen,mPlg)基因,再与表达载体重组．构造mPlg原核表达质粒并转化大肠杆菌。阳性克隆pSSE-mPlg经温度诱导表达,SDS-PAGE等方法证明表达产物的分子量约为29kDa。占全菌总蛋白的24％左右,并在菌内形成包涵体。经半胱氨酸再氧化法和空气氧化法复性。表达产物r-mPlg经SK作用后显示纤溶活性。同时对蛋白质浓度、复性时间等因素对复性的影响进行了初步探讨。     

PAI-2与IRF-3相互作用的鉴定

2型纤溶酶原激活物抑制剂 (plasminogenactivatorinhibitortype 2 ,PAI 2 )除了参与纤溶活性的调节、肿瘤的浸润和迁移外 ,在抑制细胞凋亡方面也发挥着重要作用。现已明确 ,PAI 2分子中的CD螺旋间区是PAI 2与其他蛋白质相互作用的结构域 ,该区的缺失将直接导致PAI 2丧失对TNF α诱导细胞凋亡的拮抗功能 ,但其作用机制不详。以PAI 2的CD螺旋间区为诱饵 ,利用Gal 4酵母双杂交系统筛选凋亡过程中的HeLa细胞cDNA文库 ,发现干扰素调节因子 3(interferonregulatoryfactor 3,IRF 3)C端的 98个氨基酸残基与PAI 2的CD螺旋间区之间存在相互作用。通过RT PCR获得IRF 3的全长cDNA。免疫共沉淀实验进一步证实PAI 2通过其CD螺旋间区与IRF 3在细胞内也存在特异性的相互作用。IRF 3是一种转录调节因子 ,在抗病毒感染、免疫调节、病毒诱导的细胞凋亡中发挥重要作用。因此证实PAI 2与IRF 3之间存在相互作用 ,为进一步研究PAI 2参与抗病毒感染或抗细胞凋亡等方面打下了基础     

同型半胱氨酸对人脐静脉血管内皮细胞tPA 及PAI-1基因表达的影响

目的探讨同型半胱氨酸(Hcy)对纤溶系统的影响,观察Hcy在转录水平对人脐静脉血管内皮细胞(HUVEC)表达组织型纤溶酶原激活物(tPA)和纤溶酶原激活物抑制剂1(PAI1)的影响。方法将体外培养的HUVEC分为生理浓度(10μmol/LHcy)组,病理浓度(50、200、500μmol/L)Hcy组及单纯培养基组(0μmol/LHcy),培养24h后,提取RNA,反转录聚合酶链反应分析(RTPCR)法分析各组tPA及PAI1基因表达水平。结果500μmol/LHcy组与10μmol/LHcy组相比,tPAmRNA基因表达明显下调(P<0.05),PAI1mRNA表达则明显上调(P<0.05)。而与单纯培养基组相比,10μmol/LHcy组tPAmRNA表达明显增高(P<0.05)。结论生理浓度Hcy可以增加纤溶系统活性,减少血栓性疾病的发生。高Hcy(病理浓度)则抑制纤溶系统活性,促进缺血性心脑血管疾病的发生。     

Structural basis of interaction between urokinase-type plasminogen activator and its receptor

Recent studies indicate that binding of the urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) to its high-affinity receptor (uPAR) orchestrates uPAR interactions with other cellular components that play a pivotal role in diverse (patho-)physiological processes, including wound healing, angiogenesis, inflammation, and cancer metastasis. However, notwithstanding the wealth of biochemical data available describing the activities of uPAR, little is known about the exact mode of uPAR/uPA interactions or the presumed conformational changes that accompany uPA/uPAR engagement. Here, we report the crystal structure of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR), which contains the three domains of the wild-type receptor but lacks the cell-surface anchoring sequence, in complex with the amino-terminal fragment of urokinase-type plasminogen activator (ATF), at the resolution of 2.8 A. We report the 1.9 A crystal structure of free ATF. Our results provide a structural basis, represented by conformational changes induced in uPAR, for several published biochemical observations describing the nature of uPAR/uPA interactions and provide insight into mechanisms that may be responsible for the cellular responses induced by uPA binding.     

Purified alpha 2-macroglobulin receptor/LDL receptor-related protein binds urokinase.plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1 complex. Evidence that the alpha 2-macroglobulin receptor mediates cellular degradation of urokinase receptor-bound complexes.

Complexes between 125I-labeled urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1 (PAI-1) bound to purified alpha 2-macroglobulin (alpha 2M) receptor (alpha 2MR)/low density lipoprotein receptor-related protein (LRP). No binding was observed when using uPA. The magnitude of uPA.PAI-1 binding was comparable with that of the alpha 2MR-associated protein (alpha 2MRAP). Binding of uPA.PAI-1 was blocked by natural and recombinant alpha 2MRAP, and about 80% inhibited by complexes between tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA) and PAI-1, and by a monoclonal anti-PAI-1 antibody. In human monocytes, uPA.PAI-1, like uPA and its amino-terminal fragment, bound to the urokinase receptor (uPAR). Degradation of uPAR-bound 125I-uPA.PAI-1 was 3-4-fold enhanced as compared with uncomplexed uPAR-bound uPA. The inhibitor-enhanced uPA degradation was blocked by r alpha 2MRAP and inhibited by polyclonal anti-alpha 2MR/LRP antibodies. This is taken as evidence for mediation of internalization and degradation of uPAR-bound uPA.PAI-1 by alpha 2MR/LRP.     

Proteolytic cleavage of the urokinase receptor substitutes for the agonist-induced chemotactic effect.

Physiological concentrations of urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) stimulated a chemotactic response in human monocytic THP-1 through binding to the urokinase receptor (uPAR). The effect did not require the protease moiety of uPA, as stimulation was achieved also with the N-terminal fragment (ATF), while the 33 kDa low molecular weight uPA was ineffective. Co-immunoprecipitation experiments showed association of uPAR with intracellular kinase(s), as demonstrated by in vitro kinase assays. Use of specific antibodies identified p56/p59hck as a kinase associated with uPAR in THP-1 cell extracts. Upon addition of ATF, p56/p59hck activity was stimulated within 2 min and returned to normal after 30 min. Since uPAR lacks an intracellular domain capable of interacting with intracellular kinase, activation of p56/p59hck must require a transmembrane adaptor. Evidence for this was strongly supported by the finding that a soluble form of uPAR (suPAR) was capable of inducing chemotaxis not only in THP-1 cells but also in cells lacking endogenous uPAR (IC50, 5 pM). However, activity of suPAR require chymotrypsin cleavage between the N-terminal domain D1 and D2 + D3. Chymotrypsin-cleaved suPAR also induced activation of p56/p59hck in THP-1 cells, with a time course comparable with ATF. Our data show that uPA-induced signal transduction takes place via uPAR, involves activation of intracellular tyrosine kinase(s) and requires an as yet undefined adaptor capable of connecting the extracellular ligand binding uPAR to intracellular transducer(s).     

Ligand binding regions in the receptor for urokinase-type plasminogen activator

The interaction between urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) and its cellular receptor (uPAR) is a key event in cell surface-associated plasminogen activation, relevant for cell migration and invasion. In order to define receptor recognition sites for uPA, we have expressed uPAR fragments as fusion products with the minor coat protein on the surface of M13 bacteriophages. Sequence analysis of cDNA fragments encoding uPA-binding peptides indicated the existence of a composite uPA-binding structure including all three uPAR domains. This finding was confirmed by experiments using an overlapping 15-mer peptide array covering the entire uPAR molecule. Four regions within the uPAR sequence were found to directly bind to uPA: two distinct regions containing amino acids 13--20 and amino acids 74--84 of the uPAR domain I, and regions in the putative loop 3 of the domains II and III. All the uPA-binding fragments from the three domains were shown to have an agonistic effect on uPA binding to immobilized uPAR. Furthermore, uPAR-(154--176) increased uPAR-transfected BAF3-cell adhesion on vitronectin in the presence of uPA, whereas uPAR-(247--276) stimulated the cell adhesion both in the absence or presence of uPA. The latter fragment was also able to augment the binding of vitronectin to uPAR in a purified system, thereby mimicking the effect of uPA on this interaction. These results indicate that uPA binding can take place to particular part(s) on several uPAR molecules and that direct uPAR-uPAR contacts may contribute to receptor activation and ligand binding.     

Urokinase links plasminogen activation and cell adhesion by cleavage of the RGD motif in vitronectin

Components of the plasminogen activation system including urokinase (uPA), its inhibitor (PAI‐1) and its cell surface receptor (uPAR) have been implicated in a wide variety of biological processes related to tissue homoeostasis. Firstly, the binding of uPA to uPAR favours extracellular proteolysis by enhancing cell surface plasminogen activation. Secondly, it promotes cell adhesion and signalling through binding of the provisional matrix protein vitronectin. We now report that uPA and plasmin induces a potent negative feedback on cell adhesion through specific cleavage of the RGD motif in vitronectin. Cleavage of vitronectin by uPA displays a remarkable receptor dependence and requires concomitant binding of both uPA and vitronectin to uPAR. Moreover, we show that PAI‐1 counteracts the negative feedback and behaves as a proteolysis‐triggered stabilizer of uPAR‐mediated cell adhesion to vitronectin. These findings identify a novel and highly specific function for the plasminogen activation system in the regulation of cell adhesion to vitronectin. The cleavage of vitronectin by uPA and plasmin results in the release of N‐terminal vitronectin fragments that can be detected in vivo, underscoring the potential physiological relevance of the process.     

Plasminogen activator inhibitors regulate cell adhesion through a uPAR‐dependent mechanism

Binding of type‐1 plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI‐1) to cell surface urokinase (uPA) promotes inactivation and internalization of adhesion receptors (e.g., urokinase receptor (uPAR), integrins) and leads to cell detachment from a variety of extracellular matrices. In this report, we begin to examine the mechanism of this process. We show that neither specific antibodies to uPA, nor active site inhibitors of uPA, can detach the cells. Thus, cell detachment is not simply the result of the binding of macromolecules to uPA and/or of the inactivation of uPA. We further demonstrate that another uPA inhibitor, protease nexin‐1 (PN‐1), also stimulates cell detachment in a uPA/uPAR‐dependent manner. The binding of both inhibitors to uPA leads to the specific inactivation of the matrix‐engaged integrins and the subsequent detachment of these integrins from the underlying extracellular matrix (ECM). This inhibitor‐mediated inactivation of integrins requires direct interaction between uPAR and those integrins since cells attached to the ECM through integrins incapable of binding uPAR do not respond to the presence of either PAI‐1 of PN‐1. Although both inhibitors initiate the clearance of uPAR, only PAI‐1 triggers the internalization of integrins. However, cell detachment by PAI‐1 or PN‐1 does not depend on the endocytosis of these integrins since cell detachment was also observed when clearance of these integrins was blocked. Thus, PAI‐1 and PN‐1 induce cell detachment through two slightly different mechanisms that affect integrin metabolism. These differences may be important for distinct cellular processes that require controlled changes in the subcellular localization of these receptors. J. Cell. Physiol. 220: 655–663, 2009. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

人纤溶酶原激活剂抑制物2型(PAI-2)在Pichia pastoris中的表达

用ＰＣＲ方法从ｐＰＡＩＪ．７中扩增人纤溶酶原激活剂抑制物２型（ＰＡＩ－２）基因,与ｐＰＵＣ１８重组,经限制性内切酶片段分析与核苷酸序列分析,获得全长人ＰＡＩ－２基因．ＰＡＩ－２基因与表达载体ｐＰＩＣ９重组,构建受乙醇氧化酶１基因（ＡＯＸ１）启动子与转录终止区控制的酵母表达质粒,转化ＧＳ１１５宿主菌,经表型筛选和ＰＣＲ扩增筛选阳性克隆,用甲醇诱导表达,重组ＰＡＩ－２以分泌型表达,占分泌总蛋白的３０％,具ＰＡＩ－２抗原性,与低分子量尿激酶形成了抗ＳＤＳ复合物,具抑制纤溶的活性（９１．４ＡＩＵ／ｍｌ）．对培养条件也进行了探讨．     

Crystal structure of the urokinase receptor in a ligand-free form

The urokinase receptor urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) is a surface receptor capable of not only focalizing urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA)-mediated fibrinolysis to the pericellular micro-environment but also promoting cell migration and chemotaxis. Consistent with this multifunctional role, uPAR binds several extracellular ligands, including uPA and vitronectin. Structural studies suggest that uPAR possesses structural flexibility. It is, however, not clear whether this flexibility is an inherent property of the uPAR structure per se or whether it is induced upon ligand binding. The crystal structure of human uPAR in its ligand-free state would clarify this issue, but such information remains unfortunately elusive. We now report the crystal structures of a stabilized, human uPAR (H47C/N259C) in its ligand-free form to 2.4 Å and in complex with amino-terminal fragment (ATF) to 3.2 Å. The structure of uPAR^H47C/N259C in complex with ATF resembles the wild-type uPAR·ATF complex, demonstrating that these mutations do not perturb the uPA binding properties of uPAR. The present structure of uPAR^H47C/N259C provides the first structural definition of uPAR in its ligand-free form, which represents one of the biologically active conformations of uPAR as defined by extensive biochemical studies. The domain boundary between uPAR DI–DII domains is more flexible than the DII–DIII domain boundary. Two important structural features are highlighted by the present uPAR structure. First, the DI–DIII domain boundary may face the cell membrane. Second, loop 130–140 of uPAR plays a dynamic role during ligand loading/unloading. Together, these studies provide new insights into uPAR structure–function relationships, emphasizing the importance of the inter-domain dynamics of this modular receptor.     

Measuring plasminogen activator inhibitor activity in plasma by two enzymatic assays

We compared two methods that measure plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI) activity in plasma based on the ability of PAI to inhibit tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or urokinase (uPA) in order to determine which method most accurately measures plasma PAI activity after stressors, like hemorrhage. Plasma PAI activity was significantly elevated after hemorrhage in both assays. Using standard curves derived from rhPAI-1, we found that the tPA-PAI assay was more sensitive than the uPA-PAI assay. However, we measured a 10-fold difference in PAI activity as measured between assays, suggesting that some endogenous plasma constituents (tPA, uPA, plasminogen or plasmin) may interfere with the accurate determination of PAI activity. Increasing the amount of plasma in each assay led to a progressive increase in PAI activity. However, removing either tPA or plasminogen from the tPA-PAI assay unmasked the presence of some endogenous tPA and plasminogen. Furthermore, increasing plasma volume in either assay increases measured plasma tPA, but not uPA. Finally, plasma tPA is elevated after hemorrhage, whereas plasma uPA is not. These results suggest that endogenous tPA and plasminogen may interfere with the measurement of plasma PAI activity in the tPA-PAI assay after hemorrhage or other stresses. The uPA-PAI assay does not have this confounding problem because endogenous uPA does not interfere with the assay, nor does it rise during hemorrhage.