This chapter provides an overview of the biological roles of glycans and attempts to
synthesize some general principles for understanding and exploring these roles. For
details, see the reviews cited and the other chapters in this book.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
As with other major classes of macromolecules, the biological roles of glycans span
the spectrum from those that appear to be relatively subtle, to those that are
crucial for the development, growth, functioning, or survival of the organism that
synthesizes them. Many glycans have not yet been assigned a function, because
efforts to study them have not been made or a function is not yet evident. Over the
years, many theories have been advanced regarding the biological roles of glycans.
Although there is evidence to support all of these theories, exceptions to each can
also be easily found. This should not be surprising, given the enormous diversity of
glycans in nature. Added complexities arise from the fact that glycans are
frequently targets for the binding of microbes and microbial toxins, that is, they
can be detrimental to the organism that synthesizes them.
FIGURE 6.1
.
General classification of the biological roles of glycans. A simplified and
broad classification is presented, emphasizing the roles of
organism-intrinsic and -extrinsic glycan-binding proteins in recognizing
glycans. There is some overlap between the groups (e.g., some structural
properties involve specific recognition of glycans). In the lower part of
the figure, intrinsic recognition is represented by the binding shown on the
left of the central “self” cell and extrinsic
recognition is represented by the binding shown to the right of that cell.
(Modified and redrawn, with permission of Oxford University Press, from
Gagneux P. and Varki A. 1999. Glycobiology
9: 747–755.)
Symbol Key:

The biological roles of glycans can be divided into two broad categories: (1) the
structural and modulatory properties of glycans and (2) the specific recognition of
glycans by other molecules—most commonly, glycan-binding proteins (GBPs)
(). The GBPs can be
subdivided into two major groups: (1) intrinsic GBPs, which recognize glycans from
the same organism and (2) extrinsic GBPs, which recognize glycans from a different
organism. Intrinsic GBPs typically mediate cell–cell interactions or
recognize extracellular molecules, but they can also recognize glycans on the same
cell. Extrinsic GBPs consist mostly of pathogenic microbial adhesins, agglutinins,
or toxins, but some also mediate symbiotic relationships. As discussed in
Chapter 19, these two types of glycan
recognition likely act as opposing selective forces driving evolutionary change, at
least partly accounting for the enormous diversity of glycan structure found in
nature. Further complexity arises from the fact that some microbial pathogens engage
in “molecular mimicry,” evading immune reactions by
decorating themselves with glycans typical of their hosts. Finally, some microbes
are themselves targets of their own pathogens (e.g., bacteriophages that invade
bacteria), and glycan recognition is a common feature of these interactions as well.
Other general principles emerge after reviewing the extant literature on this
subject. The biological consequences of altering glycosylation in various systems
seem to be highly variable and unpredictable. A given glycan can have different
roles in different tissues or at different times in development (organism-intrinsic
functions) or in different environmental contexts (organism-extrinsic functions). As
a broad generalization, it can be stated that terminal sequences, unusual
structures, and modifications of glycans probably mediate the more specific
biological roles within the organism. However, such glycans or modifications are
also more likely to be targets for pathogens and toxins. Perhaps as a consequence,
intraspecies and interspecies variations in glycosylation are relatively common, and
at least some of the diversity of glycans in nature may represent the signatures of
past or current host-pathogen interactions (for discussion see Chapter 19). Finally, genetic defects in
glycosylation are easily obtained in cultured cells, but often have limited
biological consequences. In contrast, the same defects in intact organisms can have
major and even catastrophic consequences. This indicates that many major functions
of glycans are operative only within an intact organism. Each of these principles is
briefly discussed below.
BIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERING GLYCOSYLATION ARE VARIABLE
Approaches taken to understand the biological roles of glycans include the prevention
of initial glycosylation, prevention of glycan chain elongation, alteration of
glycan processing, enzymatic or chemical deglycosylation of completed chains,
genetic elimination of glycosylation sites, and the study of naturally occurring
genetic variants and mutants in glycosylation (see further discussion below). The
consequences of such manipulations range from being essentially undetectable to the
complete loss of particular functions or even loss of the entire glycoconjugate
bearing the altered glycan. Even within a particular class of molecules, for example
cell-surface receptors, the effects of altering glycosylation are variable and
unpredictable. Moreover, the same glycosylation change can have markedly different
effects in different cell types, or when studied in vivo or in vitro. The answer
obtained may depend on the structure of the glycan, the biological context
(intrinsic or extrinsic interaction), and the specific biological question being
asked. Given all of the above considerations, it is difficult to predict a priori
the functions that a given glycan on a given glycoconjugate might mediate and its
relative importance to the organism.
STRUCTURAL AND MODULATORY ROLES OF GLYCANS
TABLE 6.1
| N-glycans | phosphomannose isomerase
MPI (human) | pre-ER assembly of lipid- linked N-glycan
precursors | congenital disorder of glycosylation type
Ib (CDG-Ib); hepatic fibrosis; hypo- glycemia; protein-losing
enteropathy; coagulopathy; treatable with oral mannose |
| N-glycans | GlcNAcT-I Mgat1 (mouse) | proximal aspect of post-ER elongation | embryonic lethality (E9.5); defective
vascularization; defective neural tube formation; situs inversus of
the heart |
| N-glycans | GlcNAcT-V Mgat5 (mouse) | distal aspect of post-ER elongation | autoimmune kidney disease; hyperactive
T-cell receptor signaling; defective maternal nurturing behavior;
reduced tumorigenesis of mammary epithelium |
| O-glycans | core 2 GlcNAcT-I C2gnt1
(mouse) | core 2 branch of GalNAc- linked O-glycans | defective leukocyte P- and L-selectin
ligand activity |
| O-glycans | polypeptide O-fucosyltransferase I
Pofut1 (mouse) | serine and threonine O-fucosylation | embryonic lethality (E9.5); defects that
phenocopy Notch nullizygosity; defective vasculogenesis,
neurogenesis; cardiogenesis; somito genesis |
| Glycosphingolipids | UDP-galactose: ceramide Gal-T
Cgt (mouse) | galactosylation of ceramide | loss of galactocerebrosides in peripheral
nerve myelin; nerve conduction defects, tremor and death from
ataxia; loss of sympathetic nervous-system-dependent egress of
hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells from bone marrow |
| Shared outer sequences | β1-4galactosyltransferase-1
GalT1 (mouse) | outer-chain galactosylation of N- and
O-glycans | defective growth; faulty differentiation
of epithelia; endocrine insufficiency |
| Sialic acids | ST3Gal-I ST3Gal1 (mouse) | α2-3 sialylation of core 1
O-glycans | enhanced CD8αβ
binding avidity to MHC class I molecules; proapoptotic phenotype in
CD8+ lymphocytes |
| Glycophospholipid anchors | GlcNAc phosphatidylinositol synthetase
PIG-A (mouse, human) | synthesis of the first intermediate in GPI
anchor formation | germ-line knockout embryonic lethal in
mice; somatic knockout in hematopoietic stem cells removes
complement- regulating molecules CD59 and DAF and results in
enhanced complement- mediated red cell lysis (called paroxysmal
nocturnal hemoglobinuria in humans) |
| Hyaluronan | hyaluronan synthetase 2
Has2 (mouse) | synthesis of hyaluronan | embryonic lethality
(E9.5–E10); absence of cardiac endothelial
transformation to mesenchyme; deficiency in formation of the
atrioventricular canal |
| Sulfated glycos- aminoglycans | glucosaminyl N-deacetylase/
N-sulfotransferase-1 Ndst1 (mouse) | synthesis of heparan sulfate | perinatal lethality due to brain/skull
defects and lung surfactant problems |
| Sulfated glycos- aminoglycans | glucosaminyl N-deacetylase/
N-sulfotransferase-2 Ndst2 (mouse) | synthesis of heparan sulfate | loss of heparin sulfate from mast cells;
defective granule formation in mast cells |
| O-GlcNAc modification | O-GlcNAc transferase Ogt
(mouse) | GlcNAc addition to serines and threonines
on nuclear and cytoplasmic proteins | hemizygosity for this X-linked locus is
not compatible even with cellular viability of the targeted
embryonic stem cell |
There is little doubt that glycans have many protective, stabilizing, organizational,
and barrier functions. As discussed in
Chapter
1, the glycocalyx that covers all eukaryotic cells and the polysaccharide
coats of various prokaryotes can represent a substantial physical barrier. Glycans
attached to matrix molecules, such as proteoglycans, are important for the
maintenance of tissue structure, porosity, and integrity. Such molecules can also
contain binding sites for other specific types of glycans that in turn aid the
overall organization of the matrix. The external location of glycans on most
glycoproteins can provide a general shield, protecting the underlying polypeptide
from recognition by proteases or antibodies. Glycans are also involved in the proper
folding of newly synthesized polypeptides in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and/or
in the subsequent maintenance of protein solubility and conformation. Indeed, if
some proteins are incorrectly glycosylated, they fail to fold properly and/or to
exit the ER, being consigned instead to degradation in proteasomes. Conversely,
there are also examples of glycoproteins whose synthesis, folding, trafficking,
sensitivity to proteolysis, or immune recognition seem quite unaffected by altering
their glycosylation. Moreover, inhibitors (see
Chapter 50) or genetic mutations (see
Table 6.1 and
Chapter 42) that only affect the later steps of glycan processing often
do not interfere with basic structural functions. Although the structural functions
of glycans are obviously of great importance to the intact organism, they do not
explain why such a diverse range of complex glycan molecules has evolved.
Glycosylation can also modulate the interaction of proteins with one another. Some
growth factor receptors seem to acquire their binding abilities in a
glycosylation-dependent manner while they are in transit through the Golgi
apparatus. This may limit unwanted early interactions of a newly synthesized
receptor with a growth factor that is synthesized in the same cell. Glycosylation of
a polypeptide can also mediate an on-off or switching effect. For example, when the
hormone beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin is deglycosylated, it is still able to
bind to its receptor with similar affinity, but it fails to stimulate adenylate
cyclase. In most instances, the effects of glycosylation are incomplete, that is,
glycosylation appears to be “tuning” a primary function of
the protein rather than turning it on or off. For example, the activity of some
glycosylated growth factors and hormones can be modulated over a wide range by the
extent and type of their glycosylation. This becomes particularly evident when
recombinant forms of such molecules are produced in biotechnology, bearing different
types and extents of glycosylation. A striking example is the role of polysialic
acid chains attached to the neural cell adhesion molecule (NCAM). This adhesion
receptor normally mediates homophilic binding between neuronal cells. In the
embryonic state, or in other states of neural “plasticity,”
these anionic polysialic chains tend to be very long, thereby interfering with
homophilic binding (see Chapter 14).
There are also instances wherein protein functions can be tuned by glycans attached
to other neighboring structures. For example, the polysialic acids of embryonic NCAM
can interfere with the interactions of other unrelated receptor–ligand
pairs, simply by physically separating the cells. Also, the tyrosine phosphorylation
activity of the epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor and the insulin receptor can
be modulated by endogenous cell-surface gangliosides, possibly by organizing them
into membrane microdomains (see Chapter
10). Although the precise mechanisms of these latter effects are uncertain,
specificity is implied by the requirement for a defined glycan sequence in the
ganglioside. Because most such tuning effects of glycans are partial, their overall
importance might be questioned. However, the sum total of several such partial
effects can be a dramatic effect on the final biological outcome. Thus,
glycosylation appears to be a mechanism for generating important functional
diversity from the limited set of basic receptor–ligand interactions
that are possible, when using the gene products derived from the typical genome. Of
course, as with most other functions of glycans, exceptions to these concepts can be
found. There are many receptors whose ligand binding is not acquired in a
glycosylation-dependent manner and many peptide ligands whose binding and action are
not obviously affected by glycosylation.
Another structural/modulatory function of glycans appears to be to act as a
protective storage depot for biologically important molecules. For example, many
heparin-binding growth factors (see Chapters
16 and 35) are found
attached to the glycosaminoglycan (GAG) chains of the extracellular matrix, adjacent
to cells that need to be stimulated, for example, in the basement membrane
underlying epithelial and endothelial cells. This prevents diffusion of the factors
away from the site (sometimes generating morphogenic gradients), protects them from
nonspecific proteolysis, prolongs their active lives, and allows them to be released
under specific conditions. Likewise, the GAG chains found in secretory granules seem
to bind and protect the protein contents of the granule and modulate their
functions. There are several other instances in which glycans act as sinks or depots
for biologically important molecules, such as water, ions, and immune regulatory
proteins.
GLYCANS AS SPECIFIC LIGANDS FOR CELL–CELL INTERACTIONS (INTRINSIC
RECOGNITION)
The first intrinsic glycan receptors to be identified were those that mediate
clearance, turnover, and intracellular trafficking of soluble blood-plasma
glycoproteins (for examples, see Chapter
31). Most of these receptors specifically recognize certain terminal or
subterminal glycans on the soluble glycoprotein. However, even the most elegantly
precise examples, such as the role of mannose-6-phosphate (Man-6-P) in the
trafficking of lysosomal enzymes to lysosomes (see Chapter 30), feature some exceptions. Thus,
Man-6-phosphorylation is not absolutely required for the trafficking of lysosomal
enzymes in certain cell types nor is it operative at all in some lower eukaryotes.
There are also endocytic receptors, whose functions have yet to be assigned, that
recognize specific glycan sequences. Several instances exist wherein free glycans
can have hormonal actions that induce specific responses in a highly
structure-specific manner. Examples include the interaction of small glycans from
bacterial symbionts with plant roots (see Chapter 37) and the bioactive properties of fragments of hyaluronan in
mammalian systems (see Chapter 15),
both of which can induce biological responses in a size- and structure-dependent
manner. Like wise, free heparan or dermatan sulfate fragments released by certain
cell types can have major biological effects in complex situations such as wound
healing. In many of these instances, the putative receptors for these molecules and
their precise mechanisms of action are still being defined.
It is now clear that glycans have many specific biological roles in
cell–cell recognition and cell–matrix interactions. One of
the best characterized examples concerns the selectin family of adhesion molecules,
which recognize glycan structures on their ligands and thereby mediate critical
interactions between blood cells and vascular cells in a wide variety of normal and
pathological situations (see Chapter
31). As indicated above, GBPs and glycans present on cell surfaces can
interact specifically with molecules in the matrix or even with glycans on the same
cell surface. In some such instances, the specific biological significance of
recognition has yet to be conclusively demonstrated in the intact animal. Also, it
is becoming clear that some critical recognition sites are actually combinations of
glycans and protein. For example, P-selectin recognizes the generic selectin ligand
sialyl Lewisx with high affinity only in the context of the
amino-terminal 13 amino acids of P-selectin glycoprotein ligand-1 (PSGL-1), which
include certain required sulfated tyrosine residues (see Chapter 31). More recently, a different form of intrinsic
recognition has been described, in which glycan-binding sites of cell-surface
receptors are masked by cognate glycans on the same cell surface, making them
unavailable for recognition by external ligands (see Chapter 32).
Carbohydrate–carbohydrate interactions may also have a specific role in
cell–cell interactions and adhesion. A dramatic example is the
species-specific interaction between marine sponges, which is mediated via homotypic
binding of the glycans on a large cell-surface glycoprotein. Another example is the
compaction of the mouse embryo at the morula stage, which seems to be facilitated by
a Lewisx–Lewisx interaction. The single-site
affinities of such interactions are not very strong and are sometimes difficult to
measure. However, if the molecules in question are present in very high copy numbers
on the cell surface, a large number of relatively low-affinity interactions can
collaborate to produce a high-avidity “Velcro” effect that
is sufficient to mediate biologically relevant interactions.
GLYCANS AS SPECIFIC LIGANDS FOR CELL–MICROBE INTERACTIONS (EXTRINSIC
RECOGNITION)
As discussed in Chapter 34, certain
glycans act as specific binding sites for a variety of viruses, bacteria, and
parasites, and as recognition targets for many plant and bacterial toxins. In such
situations, there is typically excellent recognition specificity for the sequence of
the glycan involved. For example, the hemagglutinins of many viruses specifically
recognize the type of host sialic acid, its modifications, and its linkage to the
underlying sugar chain. Likewise, various toxins bind with great specificity to
certain gangliosides but not to related structures (see Chapters 10 and 34). There is little doubt about the importance of structural specificity
with respect to these functions of glycans. Indeed, many of the microbial binding
proteins involved have been harnessed as specific tools for studying the expression
of the cognate sugar chains. However, providing signposts to aid the success of
pathogenic microorganisms has little obvious value to the organism that synthesized
such glycans. Perhaps to counter such deleterious consequences, some organisms may
have also evolved the ability to mask or modify glycans recognized by microorganisms
or toxins. Conversely, glycan sequences on soluble glycoconjugates, such as secreted
mucins, can also act as decoys for microorganisms and parasites. Thus, a pathogenic
organism or toxin seeking to bind to mucosal cell membranes may first encounter the
specific glycan ligand attached to a soluble mucin, which can then be washed away,
removing the potential danger to the cells underneath. In contrast, instances occur
in which symbiosis is mediated by specific glycan recognition, such as some
commensal bacteria in the gut lumen of animals and the bacteria involved in forming
plant root nodules (see Chapter
37).
MOLECULAR MIMICRY OF HOST GLYCANS BY PATHOGENS
Pathogens that invade multicellular animals sometimes decorate themselves with glycan
structures that appear to be identical or nearly identical to those found on their
host cell surfaces (see Chapters 39 and
40). These glycans form a thick
coating on the surface of the microbe and therefore represent a very successful
strategy for evading host immune responses. Perhaps not surprisingly, pathogens
appear to have evolved to achieve this state of molecular mimicry by making use of
“every possible trick in the book,” for example, direct or
indirect appropriation of host glycans, convergent evolution toward similar
biosynthetic pathways, and even lateral gene transfer. In some instances, the impact
of the pathogen is aggravated by autoimmune reactions, resulting from host reactions
to these host-like antigens.
THE SAME GLYCAN CAN HAVE DIFFERENT ROLES WITHIN AN ORGANISM
The expression of certain types of glycans on different glycoconjugates in different
tissues at different times of development implies that these structures have diverse
roles within the same organism. For example, Man-6-P-containing glycans were first
found on lysosomal enzymes and are involved in lysosomal trafficking (see Chapter 30). However, Man-6-P-containing
glycans are now known to occur on a variety of apparently unrelated proteins,
including proliferin, thyroglobulin, the EGF receptor, and the transforming growth
factor-β (TGF-β) precursor, and they have certain functional
roles in the biology of these proteins or their role remains to be discovered.
Likewise, the sialylated fucosylated lactosamines critical for selectin recognition
(see Chapter 31) are found in a variety
of unrelated cell types in mammals, and the polysialic acid chains that play such an
important part in embryonic NCAM function (Chapter 14) are found on fish-egg-jelly coat proteins and on a sodium
channel protein. Given that glycans are added posttranslationally, these
observations should not be surprising. Once a new glycan or modification has been
expressed in an organism, several distinct functions could evolve independently in
different tissues and at different times in development. If any of these situations
mediated a function valuable to the survival of the organism, the genetic mechanisms
responsible for expression of the glycan and its expression pattern would remain
conserved in evolution.
INTRASPECIES AND INTERSPECIES VARIATIONS IN GLYCOSYLATION
The underlying core structures of the major classes of glycans tend to be conserved
across many species, for example, the core structure of N-glycans is conserved
across all eukaryotes and at least some of the Archaea (see Chapter 8). However, as outlined in Chapters 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, there
can be considerable diversity in outer-chain glycosylation, even among relatively
similar species. Such interspecies variations in glycan structure indicate that some
glycan sequences do not have fundamental and universal roles in all tissues and cell
types in which they are expressed. Of course, such diversity could be involved in
generating differences in morphology and function observed between species. Such
variations could also reflect differing selection pressures resulting from exposure
to different pathogen regimes. Furthermore, significant intraspecies polymorphism in
glycan structure can exist without obvious functional value. The potential role of
such polymorphisms in the interplay between parasites and host populations is
discussed in Chapter 19. Extensive
interspecies variability in primary sequence also occurs in conventional genes and
proteins, without any obvious consequences to essential functions. For example, some
yeast proteins are functional when transfected into mammalian cells and vice versa,
despite relatively limited sequence homology.
IMPORTANCE OF TERMINAL SEQUENCES, MODIFICATIONS, AND UNUSUAL STRUCTURES
Given all of the above, it is challenging to predict which glycan structures are
likely to mediate the more specific or crucial biological roles within an organism.
As mentioned above, terminal sugar sequences, unusual structures, or modifications
of the glycans are more likely to be involved in such specific roles. The predictive
value of this observation is reduced by the fact that such terminal sequences,
unusual glycans, or modifications are also more likely to be involved in
interactions with microorganisms and other noxious agents, because the balance
between the organism-intrinsic and -extrinsic functions of glycans, discussed above,
tends to involve such structures. A further complexity arises from
“micro-heterogeneity” in glycan structure (see discussion in
Chapter 19), wherein the same
glycosylation site on the same protein in the same species can carry a variety of
related glycan structures. The challenge then is to predict and sort out which of
these two distinct roles is to be assigned to a given glycan structure in a given
cell type in a given organism.
ARE THERE “JUNK” GLYCANS?
Because microorganisms and parasites that bind glycans evolve in parallel with their
multicellular hosts, they must adapt their glycan-binding
“repertoire” to any change in glycan structure presented by
the host. In response, the host population may select for new modifications of the
target structure, especially if the latter had meanwhile evolved a vital function
elsewhere within the organism. Thus, there would be no choice but to preserve the
underlying scaffolding upon which the latest modification was placed, while adding
yet another layer of complexity to its glycans. Such cycles of evolutionary
interaction between microbes and hosts might explain some of the complex and
extended sugar chains found in multicellular organisms, especially in areas of
frequent microbial contact, such as on mucosal surfaces and secreted mucins. In this
manner, “junk” glycans could accumulate, akin to
“junk” DNA. Although such structures may still function as
structural scaffolding, they may have no other specific role in that particular cell
type, organism, or at that particular time in evolution. They would, of course,
provide fodder for future evolutionary selection, either for new organism-intrinsic
functions or for population-based selective responses to a new pathogen.
Additionally, neutral unselected drift (which is now acknowledged as a major process
in evolution) can also explain some of the “junk”
glycans.
APPROACHES TO ELUCIDATING SPECIFIC BIOLOGICAL ROLES OF GLYCANS
FIGURE 6.2
.
Approaches for elucidating the biological roles of glycans. The figure
assumes that a specific biological role is being mediated by recognition of
a certain glycan structure by a specific glycan-binding protein. Clues to
this biological role could be obtained by a variety of different approaches
(for discussion of each approach, see text).
Symbol Key:

Some functions of glycans are discovered serendipitously. In other instances, the
investigator who has elucidated complete details of the structure and biosynthesis
of a specific glycan is left without knowing its functions. It is necessary to
design experiments that can differentiate between the trivial and crucial functions
mediated by each glycan. Various approaches that can be considered are discussed
below, and we emphasize the pros and cons of each. These approaches are also
presented in schematic form in .
Localization of or Interference with Specific Glycans Using Glycan-binding
Proteins or Antibodies
Most current approaches to understanding glycan diversity (see Chapter 48) involve the extraction
and identification of the entire complement of glycans found in a given organ or
tissue, without regard to the fact that individual cell types within that organ
or tissue can have widely varying patterns of glycan expression. However, the
cell-type-specific localization of glycans can be explored using the numerous
highly specific GBPs and antibodies now available (see Chapter 45). Once a specific glycan
has been localized in an interesting biological context, it is natural to
consider introducing the cognate GBP or antibody into the intact system, hoping
that it will interfere with a specific function and generate an interpretable
phenotype. A similar approach with antibodies can be very successful when
investigating the function of a protein, but with rare exceptions, this strategy
is likely to give confusing results with regard to glycan function. Most
antibodies against glycans are of the IgM variety and hence tend to have weak
affinity and show cross-reactivity between species. Although high-affinity IgG
antibodies are preferred, they are hard to obtain, because glycans tend to be
T-independent antigens, and often do not generate high-titer immune responses.
Likewise, although some plant lectins seem to be very specific for animal
glycans, they originate from organisms that typically do not contain the same
ligand. Thus, their apparent specificity may not be as reliable when introducing
them into complex animal biological systems where unknown cross-reacting glycan
structures are potentially present. Finally, both antibodies and GBPs are
multivalent, and their cognate ligands (the glycans) tend to be present in
multiple copies on multiple glycoconjugates. Thus, introduction of a GBP or
antibody into a complex biological system is likely to cause nonspecific
aggregation of various molecules and cell types, and the effects seen may have
nothing to do with the biological functions of the glycan in question. It would
seem more worthwhile to develop recombinant monovalent GBP modules that are
derived from the same system being investigated. Providing they are of high
enough affinity, the effects of introducing such monovalent GBPs into a complex
system as competitors of the native function may yield more interpretable
clues.
Metabolic Inhibition or Alteration of Glycosylation
As outlined in Chapter 50, many
pharmacological agents can metabolically inhibit or alter glycosylation in
intact cells and animals. Although metabolic inhibitors are powerful tools to
elucidate biosynthetic pathways, they can sometimes yield confusing results in
complex systems. One concern is that the inhibitor may have effects on other
unrelated pathways. For example, the inhibitor tunicamycin that blocks N-linked
glycosylation can also inhibit UDP-Gal uptake into the Golgi. The second concern
is that the inhibitor may cause such massive changes in glycan synthesis that
the physical properties of the glycoconjugates and/or membranes are altered,
making it difficult to interpret the results. Somewhat more useful results can
be obtained by introducing low-molecular-weight primers of terminal
glycosylation (see Chapter 50),
which can act as alternate substrates for Golgi enzymes, diverting synthesis
away from the endogenous glycoproteins. However, this approach can
simultaneously generate incomplete glycans on the endogenous glycoconjugates, as
well as produce secreted glycan chains, each of which could have its own
biological effects.
Finding Natural Glycan Ligands for Specific Receptors
Because specific “carbohydrate-recognition domains” can
be identified within a primary amino acid sequence (see Chapters 26 and 27), it is now possible to predict
whether a newly cloned protein can bind glycans. If a potential GBP can be
produced in sufficient quantities, techniques such as hemagglutination, flow
cytometry, surface plasmon resonance, and affinity chromatography (see Chapter 27) can then be used to
search for specific ligands. However, the monovalent affinity of the putative
GBP for its ligand may not be high. Thus, high densities and/or multivalent
arrays may be needed to avoid missing a biologically relevant interaction. The
question also arises as to where exactly to look for the biologically relevant
ligands in a complex multicellular system. Furthermore, because many glycan
structures can be expressed in different tissues at different times in
development and growth, a recombinant GBP may detect a cognate structure in a
location and at a time that it is not actually of major biological relevance.
Careful consideration of the natural occurrence and expression profile of the
GBPs should lead to a rational decision as to where to look for its biologically
relevant glycan ligands.
Finding Receptors that Recognize Specific Glycans
The converse situation arises when an unusual glycan is found to be expressed in
an interesting context and is hypothesized to be a ligand for a specific
receptor. It is possible to search for such a receptor by techniques similar to
those mentioned above, such as hemagglutination, flow cytometry, and affinity
chromatography (see Chapter 27). To
facilitate the search, it is necessary to have reasonable quantities of the pure
defined glycan in question, as well as a variety of closely related structures
that can act as negative controls. Because many biologically relevant
lectin-like interactions are of low affinity, it is probably advisable to use a
multivalent form of the glycan as the probe. Finally, it may not be obvious
where to look for the glycan-binding protein. For example, the receptor that
specifically recognizes the unusual sulfated N-glycans of pituitary glycoprotein
hormones was eventually found not in the pituitary itself nor in any of the
target tissues for these hormones, but in the endothelial cells of the liver,
where it serves to regulate the circulating half-life of the hormones (see Chapter 28). Indeed, the most
biologically relevant receptor for a particular glycan might even be found in
another organism (a pathogen or a symbiont).
Interference by Soluble Glycans or Structural Mimics
The addition of soluble glycans or their structural mimics into the system can
cause interference with the interaction between an endogenous GBP and a specific
glycan (see Chapter 27). If a
sufficient concentration of the specific inhibitor can be achieved, the
resulting phenotypic changes can be instructive. When studying in vitro systems,
even monosaccharides can be used to advantage in such experiments, as
exemplified by the exploration of the Man-6-P receptor pathway (Chapter 30). However, it is often
necessary to use competing glycans in somewhat large quantities to block the
relatively low-affinity interactions between a GBP and its specific ligand.
Effective blockade may also require multivalency of the cognate glycan. Finally,
especially when studying complex multicellular systems, the glycans introduced
could be cross-recognized by other as-yet-unknown binding proteins, giving a
confusing phenotypic readout.
Eliminating Specific Glycan Structures by Glycosidases
A powerful approach to understanding the biological roles of glycans is to use
degradative enzymes known to be highly specific for a particular glycan
sequence. Many such specific enzymes can be obtained from microbial pathogens.
The advantage of this approach is that one is not interfering with the basic
biosynthetic cellular machinery, but simply eliminating certain structures
selectively after normal synthesis has been completed. Thus, for example,
sialidase treatment abolished lymphocyte binding to the high endothelial venules
of lymph nodes and provided the first prediction of the nature of endogenous
ligands for L-selectin (Chapter
31); injection of endoneuraminidase into the developing retina suggested
specific roles for polysialic acids (Chapter 14), and injection of heparanase into developing embryos
resulted in a randomization of left–right axis formation (Chapter 16). In all such studies, the
purity of the enzyme used is critical and appropriate controls are necessary
(including, if possible, a specific inhibitor of the enzyme or a catalytically
inactive version of the enzyme). If the enzyme is of bacterial origin, trace
amounts of potent contaminants such as endotoxin are also of concern. A genetic
approach can be used to avoid problems of contamination by expressing a cDNA for
the glycan-modifying enzyme in the intact cell or animal. For example,
transgenic expression in mice of an influenza sialic-acid-specific
9-O-acetylesterase gave either early or late abnormalities in development,
depending on the promoter used. Unfortunately, many such glycosidases may not
function well or at all in the context of an intact animal, which can limit the
spectrum of glycan structures that may be probed for function with this
approach.
Studying Natural or Genetically Engineered Glycan Mutants
This is intuitively a powerful approach for understanding glycan function.
Technically, it is easiest to study glycosylation mutants in cultured cell lines
(see Chapter 46). However, although
genetic or acquired defects in glycosylation are obtained relatively easily in
cultured cell lines, these defects may have limited or not easily discernible
biological consequences. This may be because of the lack of other factors or
cell types that would be present in the intact organism. For example, the
cognate receptor for the glycan may not be present in the same cell type. Of
course, such mutants can still be used to analyze basic structural functions of
the glycans and their relevance to the physiology of a single cell. Furthermore,
one can add back external factors or other cell types thought to interact with
the modified glycan. Some mutants can also be reintroduced into intact
organisms, for example, to study tumorigenicity or metastatic behavior of
malignant cells.
Although much useful information can be gained by such approaches, many of the
more specific roles of glycans need to be uncovered by studying mutations in the
intact multicellular organism. Genetic defects in glycosylation in intact
organisms were initially thought to be relatively uncommon. Looking back on the
many glycosylation mutants that have been recently discovered in flies, worms,
mice, and humans (see
Table 6.1 and
Chapter 42), it is clear that
glycan changes often affect multiple systems and that the phenotypes are
unpredictable and highly variable. In retrospect, the apparent rarity of
naturally occurring mutations can now be explained in several ways. In some
cases, they appear to have limited biological consequences in the otherwise
healthy animal because of redundant pathways. For example, our understanding of
the role of GalNAc-initiated O-glycans in animals has been hampered by the
remarkable multiplicity of polypeptide GalNAc transferase loci and the
consequent inability to easily “delete” O-glycan
synthesis using gene “knockout” approaches in mice. In
other cases, specific challenges are needed to elucidate the phenotype, and the
nature of such challenges is not always initially apparent. Alternatively, many
mutations cause lethal aberrations that prevent completion of embryogenesis.
This has become apparent, in part, by comparing the genotype-phenotype
relationships in naturally occuring human disorders of glycosylation and in
experimentally induced glycosylation disorders in mice. In humans, naturally
occurring disease-associated mutations in glycosylation pathways almost always
correspond to missense mutations that leave some residual enzymatic function
intact, whereas deletion of the corresponding enzymatic locus in mice often
leads to a lethal phenotype during embryogenesis. Another possibility is that
such genetic abnormalities remain undetected because their consequences are
pleiotropic. Indeed, it has only been recently discovered that several pediatric
developmental disorders are caused by genetic abnormalities in glycan
biosynthesis (see
Chapter 42).
Regardless, the value of constructing glycosylation mutants in intact animals is
evident. Indeed, it can now be stated that complete elimination of most of the
major glycan classes of vertebrate cells has been genetically accomplished in
the mouse, and every instance has lead to embryonic lethality. Given the complex
phenotypes and the potential for early developmental lethality, the ability to
disrupt glycosylation-related genes in a temporally controlled and
cell-type-specific manner can be particularly valuable.
Studying Natural or Genetically Engineered Glycan Receptor Mutants
Eliminating a specific glycan receptor can yield a phenotype that may be very
instructive with regard to the functions of the glycan. As with genetic
modification of the glycan, the results are more likely to be useful if studied
in the intact organism. However, the receptor protein may have other functions
unrelated to glycan recognition. Conversely, the glycan in question may have
other functions not mediated by the receptor. Thus, for example, the genetic
elimination of the CD22/Siglec-2 receptor and the ST6Gal I enzyme that generates
its ligand gave complementary, but not identical, phenotypes (see Chapter 32). However, breeding the
two mutations into the same mouse indicated that there were indeed epistatic
interactions. Similar results were obtained by mating mice deficient in making
polysialic acid and in synthesizing the protein carrier of polysialic acids,
NCAM.
FURTHER READING
Roseman S.
The synthesis of carbohydrates by multiglycosyltransferase
systems and their potential function in intercellular adhesion.
Chem Phys Lipids.
1970; 5: 270–297.
[PubMed]
Montreuil J.
Primary structure of glycoprotein glycans: Basis for the
molecular biology of glycoproteins.
Adv. Carbohydr. Chem. Biochem.
1980; 37: 157–223.
[PubMed]
Berger EG, Buddecke E, Kamerling JP, Kobata A, Paulson JC, Vliegenthart JFG.
Structure, biosynthesis and functions of glycoprotein glycans.
Experientia.
1982; 38: 1129–1162.
[PubMed]
Rademacher TW, Parekh RB, Dwek RA.
Glycobiology.
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
1988; 57: 785–838.
[PubMed]
Hart GW.
Glycosylation.
Curr. Opin. Cell. Biol.
1992; 4: 1017–1023.
[PubMed]
Kobata A.
Structures and functions of the sugar chains of glycoproteins.
Eur. J. Biochem.
1992; 209: 483–501.
[PubMed]
Lis H, Sharon N.
Protein glycosylation—Structural and functional
aspects.
Eur. J. Biochem.
1993; 218: 1–27.
[PubMed]
Varki A.
Biological roles of oligosaccharides: All of the theories are
correct.
Glycobiology.
1993; 3: 97–130.
[PubMed]
Stanley P, Ioffe E.
Glycosyltransferase mutants: Key to new insights in glycobiology.
FASEB J.
1995; 9: 1436–1444.
[PubMed]
Gahmberg CG, Tolvanen M.
Why mammalian cell surface proteins are glycoproteins.
Trends Biochem. Sci.
1996; 21: 308–311.
[PubMed]
Hooper LV, Manzella SM, Baenziger JU.
From legumes to leukocytes: Biological roles for sulfated
carbohydrates.
FASEB J.
1996; 10: 1137–1146.
[PubMed]
Salmivirta M, Lidholt K, Lindahl U.
Heparan sulfate: A piece of information.
FASEB J.
1996; 10: 1270–1279.
[PubMed]
Spillmann D, Burger MM.
Carbohydrate–carbohydrate interactions in adhesion.
J. Cell. Biochem.
1996; 61: 562–568.
[PubMed]
Drickamer K, Taylor ME.
Evolving views of protein glycosylation.
Trends Biochem. Sci.
1998; 23: 321–324.
[PubMed]
Ferguson MAJ.
The structure, biosynthesis and functions of
glycosylphosphatidylinositol anchors, and the contributions of trypanosome
research.
J. Cell. Sci.
1999; 112: 2799–2809.
[PubMed]
Gagneux P, Varki A.
Evolutionary considerations in relating oligosaccharide diversity
to biological function.
Glycobiology.
1999; 9: 747–755.
[PubMed]
Angata T, Varki A.
Chemical diversity in the sialic acids and related
α-keto acids: An evolutionary perspective.
Chem. Rev.
2002; 102: 439–470.
[PubMed]
Esko JD, Selleck SB.
Order out of chaos: Assembly of ligand binding sites in heparan
sulfate.
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
2002; 71: 435–471.
[PubMed]
Freeze HH.
Human disorders in N-glycosylation and animal models.
Biochim. Biophys. Acta.
2002; 1573: 388–393.
[PubMed]
Hakomori SI.
The glycosynapse.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
2002; 99: 225–232.
[PubMed]
Spiro RG. Protein glycosylation: Nature, distribution, enzymatic formation,
and disease implications of glycopeptide bonds.
Glycobiology.
2002; 12: 43R–56R.
Lowe JB, Marth JD.
A genetic approach to mammalian glycan function.
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
2003; 72: 643–691.
[PubMed]
Wells L, Hart GW.
O-GlcNAc turns twenty: Functional implications for
post-translational modification of nuclear and cytosolic proteins with a
sugar.
FEBS Lett.
2003; 546: 154–158.
[PubMed]
Haltiwanger RS, Lowe JB.
Role of glycosylation in development.
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
2004; 73: 491–537.
[PubMed]
Ohtsubo K, Marth JD.
Glycosylation in cellular mechanisms of health and disease.
Cell.
2006; 126: 855–867.
[PubMed]
Varki A.
Nothing in glycobiology makes sense, except in the light of
evolution.
Cell.
2006; 126: 841–845.
[PubMed]
Varki NM, Varki A.
Diversity in cell surface sialic acid presentations: Implications
for biology and disease.
Lab. Invest.
2007; 87: 851–857.
[PubMed]
Bishop JR, Schuksz M, Esko JD.
Heparan sulphate proteoglycans fine-tune mammalian physiology.
Nature.
2007; 446: 1030–1037.
[PubMed]
Copyright ©2009 by The Consortium of Glycobiology Editors, La Jolla,
California
ǀ