![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||
Copyright Kim et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Centralized Modularity of N-Linked Glycosylation Pathways in Mammalian Cells 1Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, United States of America 2Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore 3Bioprocessing Technology Institute, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Singapore 4Institute for the BioCentury, KAIST, Daejeon, South Korea 5Department of Physics, KAIST, Daejeon, South Korea Mikael Rørdam Andersen, Editor Technical University of Denmark, Denmark * E-mail: cheld/at/nus.edu.sg (DYL); Email: hjeong/at/kaist.edu (HJ) Conceived and designed the experiments: PJK DYL HJ. Performed the experiments: PJK. Analyzed the data: PJK. Wrote the paper: PJK DYL HJ. Received April 9, 2009; Accepted September 15, 2009. Abstract Glycosylation is a highly complex process to produce a diverse repertoire of cellular glycans that are attached to proteins and lipids. Glycans are involved in fundamental biological processes, including protein folding and clearance, cell proliferation and apoptosis, development, immune responses, and pathogenesis. One of the major types of glycans, N-linked glycans, is formed by sequential attachments of monosaccharides to proteins by a limited number of enzymes. Many of these enzymes can accept multiple N-linked glycans as substrates, thereby generating a large number of glycan intermediates and their intermingled pathways. Motivated by the quantitative methods developed in complex network research, we investigated the large-scale organization of such N-linked glycosylation pathways in mammalian cells. The N-linked glycosylation pathways are extremely modular, and are composed of cohesive topological modules that directly branch from a common upstream pathway of glycan synthesis. This unique structural property allows the glycan production between modules to be controlled by the upstream region. Although the enzymes act on multiple glycan substrates, indicating cross-talk between modules, the impact of the cross-talk on the module-specific enhancement of glycan synthesis may be confined within a moderate range by transcription-level control. The findings of the present study provide experimentally-testable predictions for glycosylation processes, and may be applicable to therapeutic glycoprotein engineering. Introduction Carbohydrates are a basic cell constituent, and are one of the most abundant and diverse biopolymers in nature [1]. Complex carbohydrates have recently become widely recognized as more than just a metabolic energy source [2]–[6]. For example, the cell surface contains a layer of complex carbohydrates involved in signalling roles that are indispensable to multicellular organisms [2], [7]. Glycosylation, the attachment of glycans (oligosaccharides) to proteins or lipids, is a ubiquitous post-translational modification that generates an extensive functional capability from a limited set of genes [8]–[10]. In contrast to gene and protein sequences, the glycosylated glycan sequences are not arranged in a simple linear chain [5]. Several monosaccharides can be placed simultaneously on a particular monosaccharide, forming branched structures that provide enormous glycan structural diversity. Vertebrates, and especially mammals, have evolved a unique glycan repertoire which is structurally distinct from that of nonvertebrate organisms [2], [8]–[10]. Mammalian cells are used as host cell systems for the production of many recombinant glycoproteins; these systems can synthesize properly folded proteins with glycans resembling those in human bodies [11], [12]. N-Linked and O-linked glycans are the major contributors to the structure and function of mammalian secretory glycoproteins. N-Linked glycans are attached to asparagine residues of proteins, located within the Asn-X-Ser/Thr motif of amino acids, where X can be any amino acid except proline. N-Linked glycosylation occurs co-translationally in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) compartment. The addition of an oligosaccharide to the peptide at an early stage of glycoprotein synthesis allows the glycan to participate in the folding and quality control of a newly synthesized protein [13]. Upon successful folding of the protein and the trimming of some residues in the glycan, the glycoprotein migrates into the Golgi apparatus. Processing in the Golgi involves the removal of mannose groups and the addition of various monosaccharides to the growing glycan. The removal of the mannose groups is driven by mannosidases, and the addition of different monosaccharides is facilitated by specific glycosyltransferases. Thus, N-linked glycosylation pathways comprise consecutive enzymatic steps that rely on the glycan structures produced by the previous enzyme to produce the substrate for the next enzyme. The pathways formed in this process diverge when a glycan is a substrate for multiple enzymes, or converge when multiple glycan substrates all lead to the same product. Many glycan intermediates at different loci along the pathways, not necessarily glycans at the termini, can be secreted out of the Golgi to the targeted sites where they perform biological functions, such as mediating cell growth and development, cell-cell communication, immune recognition/response, and molecular homeostasis [2], [7]–[10], [14]. Recent advances in understanding the generic properties of complex networks, including various biological, technological, and social networks [15], [16], allow for a quantitative examination of the organization of N-linked glycosylation pathways. This development in network research has been driven largely by the availability of massive digital records and statistical methods that permit network data to be collected and analyzed on a scale far larger than previously possible. The emerging results in complex network research have led to the realization that, notwithstanding the importance of individual molecules, cellular phenotype is a contextual attribute of seamless and quantifiable network patterns among numerous constituents [17]. Despite the key role of glycosylation pathways in sustaining many biological functions, their large-scale properties have not yet been characterized from a complex network perspective. Understanding the global organization of complex networks will provide valuable and perhaps unique topological information, and may also lead to a better understanding of the dynamical and evolutionary processes of the networks, as demonstrated in several other biochemical systems, such as metabolic networks and protein-protein interaction networks [18]–[22]. Here, we explore whether the organization of glycosylation pathways can be elucidated from a complex network perspective, by investigating the structural and regulatory properties of N-linked glycosylation pathways in mammalian cells. Our findings don't only have the implications in the organizing principle of cellular glycosylation processes, but also in the glycoprotein engineering to be applicable for therapeutic purposes. Results Topological Properties and Modularity We constructed N-linked glycan biosynthetic pathways by incorporating ten typical N-linked glycosylation enzymes in mammalian cells and their substrate specificities (Table 1; see also Materials and Methods). These enzymes can accept multiple N-linked glycans as substrates, and are thus capable of generating a large number of glycan intermediates. Construction was initiated from 9-mannose glycan, the common precursor of N-linked glycans in the Golgi, and followed by biosynthetic steps to produce mainly complex-type glycans (Figure 1
Central and peripheral regions The essentiality of a particular glycan in the glycosylation network was assessed by counting the number of all downstream substrates that could not be produced in the absence of the given glycan. Following the terms in complex network research, this might be analogous to evaluating the avalanche size of a network after perturbing a single vertex [23]–[25]. Figure 2B Modular structure The spectral method developed for graph partitioning (Materials and Methods) revealed that the peripheral region comprised 21 tightly-knit subgraphs. These 21 subgraphs or modules are densely connected groups of glycans, with only sparser connections between groups. Therefore, the modules tend to be biosynthetically isolated from each other. This biosynthetically-modular property of the pathways originates from the substrate specificity of the enzymes considered here, as described below, rather than from simple differences in individual glycan structures that the conventional scheme for glycan classification [2] has been based on. Interestingly, each module in the peripheral region was generated from only a few roots, all of which belonged to the central region (Figures 2A = 0.83) compared with other biological and non-biological networks [26], suggesting that glycosylation-specific evolutionary pressure was required for the development of such a unique network structure.The number of glycans across modules was unevenly distributed, with the largest module containing 40-fold more glycans than the smallest module. The discrete jumps between module sizes in Figure 2C Enzymatic contribution To better understand the modular properties of the glycosylation network, we further investigated the enzymatic reactions involved in module formation. Reactions from the central to the peripheral region–entry reactions into the peripheral modules–were dominated by galactosylation (93.5% of the reactions; see also Figures 2A These findings suggest the enzymatic mechanisms that are responsible for generating the unique modular structure of the glycosylation network, as highlighted by the role of GalT: GalT are generous in their substrate specificity, accepting any substrate with free GlcNAc on the mannose branches, and multiple products arise from the same substrate depending on the specific galactosylated residues. Once glycans are galactosylated, however, they inhibit the approach of many other enzymes (Table 1). Such tolerance in substrate specificity and product formation facilitates the development of redundant pathways within each module, whereas the inhibition of other enzyme activities keeps different modules separated. The effect of such inhibition for module differentiation was also observed from another enzyme, β-1,4-mannosyl-glycoprotein 4-β-N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase (GnTIII). GnTIII adds bisecting GlcNAc to its substrate, and the presence of bisecting GlcNAc inhibits the activity of many enzymes (Table 1). Therefore, the bisecting GlcNAc is thought to insulate relevant modules, as shown in Figure S2 where the junctions of different modules only contain glycans without bisecting GlcNAc. Accordingly, if we exclude the glycan syntheses catalyzed by GnTIII, then the network becomes slightly less modular (Q = 0.72) as the well-insulated modules selectively disappear. We believe that this organizing principle of modular structures manifested by GalT as well as by GnTIII offers a useful guideline for the engineering of novel glycosyltransferases, as discussed below.Regulatory Properties and Cross-Talk The highly modularized, yet centralized organization of N-linked glycosylation pathways raises the question of how cells enhance or suppress the glycan production across modules against distinct physiological conditions. Within the same module, glycans are easily convertible to other glycans along densely connected pathways, whereas the conversion of glycans between different modules, which are only sparsely connected, is more difficult. Furthermore, glycans in the peripheral modules are surrounded by homogeneous enzymatic reactions (catalyzed mostly by GalT and SiaT in the Golgi), and are thus not as likely to be regulated but routed randomly along the pathways. Glycans along such unregulated routes are thought to be trapped for a long time in a particular module because there are few paths through which they can enter the other modules [27]; therefore, glycans delivered from the central region might continue to be processed inside the arrival modules until they are eventually secreted out of the Golgi. In this regard, the paths glycans take through the central region ahead of the peripheral modules likely play a critical role in the end-product formation. Specific reactions in the central region may be manipulated by the transcriptional regulation of enzyme expression. Previous experiments demonstrated a correlation between glycan production and transcript expression of the corresponding enzymes. For example, the abundance of bisected glycoforms and of GnTIII transcript as well as that of fucosylated glycoforms and of glycoprotein 6-α-L fucosyltransferase (FucT) transcript is positively correlated across different mouse tissues [28]–[30]. The heterogeneous enzyme pools in the central region favor such specific transcriptional control. Glycosylation enzymes, however, are usually involved in multiple reactions; a change in the abundance of a single enzyme is likely to affect more than one reaction in the central region, and a number of modules derived from the affected reactions will also be affected. Therefore, it is important to assess specifically how to control these modules that share the common upstream enzymes to result in the cross-talk between the modules. We considered combinations of up- and down-regulation of glycosylation enzymes that would unambiguously predict changes in glycan syntheses, and for each case, we determined which modules would enhance or suppress glycan production relative to their basal levels (Materials and Methods). Figure 3A
The explicit prediction of modules to be enhanced under given transcriptional regulation (Table S1) can be tested experimentally by measuring the change in the glycan production after genetic manipulation and identifying the relevant modules. For example, the production of glycans belonging to the 1st and 16th modules (Figure S1) is supposed to be increased after gene knockdown of GnTIII, GnTIV, and FucT, as indicated in Figure 3A Discussion The complexity and biological significance of protein glycosylation have long been underestimated, and now, in the post-genomic era, are at the forefront of scientific research. It is increasingly appreciated that biological systems exploit glycosylation in synthesizing cell-surface glycans to organize plasma membrane receptors and control the recruitment of intracellular signal transduction mediators. Hence, further knowledge of glycobiology will contribute to deciphering a myriad of biological phenomena. Clearly, a systems-level understanding of glycosylation processes will advance such scientific achievement. The N-linked glycosylation pathways comprise very distinct topological modules, all directly stemming from the common upstream pathway termed the central region. This central region might act as a ‘control tower’ of glycan production by redistributing glycan synthesis fluxes over the modules to adapt to different physiological conditions. Cross-activation or cross-talk between the modules, however, will restrict the fine-tuning level of the flux distribution. The topological properties of such N-linked glycosylation pathways were elucidated from a complex network viewpoint that further helps set the hypotheses on implicated functional and evolutionary properties. The underlying mechanism of module development is clarified by the role of GalT, which accepts a wide range of substrates and makes multiple products to inhibit many other enzyme activities. The tolerance in glycan synthesis and the inhibition of other enzyme activities contribute to module formation and differentiation, respectively, while the latter is also observed similarly in the case of GnTIII. The significant influence of GalT in pathway formation provides a pattern for the design of novel glycosyltransferases to implant another module that does not severely disturb the pre-existing pathways. Such construction or evolution of a new module would not significantly hamper the functioning of the old modules, and are thus favorable both for engineering purposes and for evolution, which could be facilitated [31] by this module-level modification. Specifically, the sugar residues attached by these novel enzymes should not inhibit galactosylation and sialylation. On the other hand, the enzymes should not accept already-galactosylated substrates. If these two rules are satisfied, then the enzymes will synthesize glycans at the central region introducing a new module in the peripheral region. Interestingly, GnTIII satisfies both rules, and this might be one reason why GnTIII works properly in recombinant Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cells although it is not present in wild-type CHO [32]–[35]. In addition, CHO cells transfected with GnTIII are utilized in industry for the production of antibodies that significantly improve antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and treat neuroblastoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma [34], [35]. More immediate applications for glycoprotein engineering might arise from the relationship between transcriptional regulation and glycan production, as described above. Orchestrated regulation of enzyme expression in the central region will allow glycan production to be enhanced in specific modules, while avoiding moderately the increased production of other unwanted modules. Possible deviations between the prediction and the empirical data may arise due to incompleteness in modelling or regulation at a post-transcriptional level of which the potential effects on glycosylation remain largely unknown. Further integration of poly-N-acetyllactosamine structures and many degradation mechanisms will dress up the pathways considered here, and the original pathways can be viewed as an organizational kernel [36] of which the main properties we expect to be still reflected in more complicated pathways. Various techniques used to study metabolic flux analysis are also expected to allow for in-depth analysis of glycosylation processes [6]. In conjunction with such mathematical modelling [6], [37], [38], the development of high-throughput experimental techniques for glycan and glyco-gene profiling [3]–[5], [10] will further facilitate the systems analysis of glycosylation processes as successfully demonstrated in this study. Materials and Methods Network Construction N-linked glycosylation pathways were constructed by enumerating N-linked glycan structures commonly observed in mammalian cells [39], starting from the input substrate shown in Figure 1 Based on previous in vivo observations, the removal of α1,2-linked mannoses by ManI was considered in the following order [40], [41]: ER resident ManI removes free α1,2-linked mannose attached to α1,3-linked mannose in the initial input substrate and then Golgi resident ManI removes each of two remaining free α1,2-linked mannoses successively, making 6-mannose and then 5-mannose glycans. For the remaining enzymatic reactions, we applied the substrate specificity data shown in Table 1 obtained from publicly available literatures [37], [42], [43]. Except GnTI which uses only one substrate, the other enzymes could catalyze reactions that involve the same glycosidic linkage on a range of different substrates. Finally, by taking into account only the pathways to be terminated at glycans containing mannoses no more than three in the core residue, we integrated pathways to produce mainly complex-type glycans for clarity of analysis. The resulting pathways are represented by a directional graph in which the vertices stand for glycan species and the edges for glycan synthetic reactions with arrows pointing from substrates to products. Network Decomposition into Subunits The essentiality of individual glycans in the pathways was investigated by perturbing the pathways through the removal of single glycans. For each removal, we calculated how many glycans could not be produced due to the complete absence of their substrate production. The removal for most of the glycans gave only negligible effects (smaller than the cut-off in Figure 2B The peripheral region could be further partitioned by maximizing modularity Q for directional graphs [44]:
= 0.83). The resulting partitions or modules in the peripheral region were labelled in ascending order of the number of constituent glycans. The results of such partitioning on the glycosylation pathways remained robust when an alternative method that was designed for bidirectional or undirected graphs was applied by ignoring the edge directions [26]. Automatic decomposition of all the pathways, including the central region, yielded only a slight increase in modularity (ΔQ = 0.02), and this result was excluded to prevent method-specific over-partitioning that does not convey any information of biological significance.Glycan Synthesis Regulation To evaluate the effect of transcriptional regulation on glycan synthesis, each enzyme i was assigned variable Ei depending on its regulated state: Ei = 1 if up-regulated, Ei = 0 if neutral, and Ei = −1 if down-regulated. In addition, let Gij be 1 if enzyme i is involved in synthesizing glycan j and, otherwise 0. Likewise, Mjk is 1 if glycan j is located at the entry of module k and, otherwise 0. To focus on unambiguous cases in the prediction of regulatory effects, we only considered the combinations of Eis that satisfied the following rules simultaneously:
Furthermore, we kept EManI = ESiaT = 0 and EGalT≥0 to avoid an otherwise global and unspecific impact on glycan synthesis across modules. Each module k could be assigned where H(x) = 1, 0, or −1 if x>0, x = 0, or x<0, respectively. Although Φk can be 1, 0, or −1, these three numbers did not appear simultaneously for any combination of Eis. For example, some particular combination of Eis allowed Φks to take 1 and 0, but never observed was a combination allowing them to take all of 1, 0, and −1. Here we considered the cases where two of 1, 0, and −1 were taken by Φks for given Eis. Because we were interested in the regulatory cases keeping a similar level of the influx of the starting substrate for which modules compete with each other, modules assigned Φk larger than the other were expected to have enhanced glycan production relative to their basal levels, and were otherwise suppressed. (Table S1). For example, modules assigned Φk = 1 were regarded as enhanced while the others assigned Φk = 0 were regarded as suppressed. One can easily prove that such a regulatory effect remains invariant to applying both Ei→−Ei and permutations of enhanced and suppressed modules. We also examined alternative regulatory models, such as explicitly considering the substrate competition between reactions, but the results did not differ much from the present results.Table S1 Lists of enhanced or suppressed modules under combinations of enzyme regulation. For the comparison with Figure 3(B) (0.09 MB PDF) Click here for additional data file.(86K, pdf) Figure S1 Entry and terminal glycans of peripheral modules. For each module, the parent glycans in the central region and the corresponding reactions are also depicted. The bulk of each module is dominated by galactosylation and sialylation. (0.10 MB PDF) Click here for additional data file.(98K, pdf) Figure S2 Reactions between glycans belonging to different modules. (0.08 MB PDF) Click here for additional data file.(83K, pdf) Acknowledgments The authors wish to express gratitude to Wonjun Park, Le Thi Phuong Thao, and Doo-Byoung Oh for fruitful discussions and for providing valuable information. Footnotes Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Funding: HJ's work was supported by KRCF and Korean Systems Biology Program grant M10309020000-03B5002-00000. DYL's work was supported by the Biomedical Research Council of A*STAR (Agency for Science, Technology, and Research), Singapore. PJK's work was supported by the IGB Postdoctoral Fellows Program. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. References 1. Sinnott ML. Catalytic mechanism of enzymic glycosyl transfer. Chem Rev. 1990;90:1171–1202. 2. Varki A, Cummings RD, Esko JD, Freeze HH, Hart GW, et al. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2008. Essentials of glycobiology. 3. Raman R, Raguram S, Venkataraman G, Paulson JC, Sasisekharan R. Glycomics: an integrated systems approach to structure-function relationships of glycans. Nat Meth. 2005;2:817–824. 4. Campbell CT, Yarema KJ. Large-scale approaches for glycobiology. Genome Biol. 2005;6:236. [PubMed] 5. von der Lieth C-W, Bohne-Lang A, Lohmann KK, Frank M. Bioinformatics for glycomics: status, methods, requirements and perspectives. Brief Bioinform. 2004;5:164–178. [PubMed] 6. Murrell MP, Yarema KJ, Levchenko A. The systems biology of glycosylation. ChemBioChem. 2004;5:1334–1347. [PubMed] 7. Hakomori S. The glycosynapse. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99:225–232. [PubMed] 8. Chen H, Wang Z, Sun Z, Kim EJ, Yarema KJ. Mammalian glycosylation: an overview of carbohydrate biosynthesis. In: Yarema KJ, editor. Handbook of carbohydrate engineering. Boca Raton, Florida: Francis & Taylor/CRC Press; 2005. pp. 1–48. 9. Ohtsubo K, Marth JD. Glycosylation in cellular mechanisms of health and disease. Cell. 2006;126:855–867. [PubMed] 10. Brooks SA. Protein glycosylation in diverse cell systems: implications for modification and analysis of recombinant proteins. Expert Rev Proteomics. 2006;3:345–359. [PubMed] 11. Butler M. Animal cell cultures: recent achievements and perspectives in the production of biopharmaceuticals. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2005;68:283–291. [PubMed] 12. Jefferis R. Glycosylation of recombinant antibody therapeutics. Biotechnol Prog. 2005;21:11–16. [PubMed] 13. Helenius A, Aebi M. Intracellular functions of N-linked glycans. Science. 2001;291:2364–2369. [PubMed] 14. Rudd PM, Elliot T, Cresswell P, Wilson IA, Dwek RA. Glycosylation and the immune system. Science. 2001;291:2370–2376. [PubMed] 15. Newman MEJ, Barabási A-L, Watts DJ. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 2006. The structure and dynamics of networks. 16. Dorogovtsev SN, Mendes JFF. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. Evolution of networks: from biological nets to the Internet and WWW. 17. Barabási A-L, Oltvai ZN. Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization. Nat Rev Genet. 2004;5:101–113. [PubMed] 18. Feist AM, Palsson BØ. The growing scope of applications of genome-scale metabolic reconstructions using Escherichia coli. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26:659–667. [PubMed] 19. Jeong H, Tomber B, Albert R, Oltvai ZN, Barabási A-L. The large-scale organization of metabolic networks. Nature. 2000;407:651–654. [PubMed] 20. Yu H, Braun P, Yildirim MA, Lemmens I, Venkatesan K, et al. High-quality binary protein interaction map of the yeast interactome network. Science. 2008;322:104–110. [PubMed] 21. Jeong H, Mason SP, Barabási A-L, Oltvai ZN. Lethality and centrality in protein networks. Nature. 2001;411:41–42. [PubMed] 22. Levy SF, Siegal ML. Network hubs buffer environmental variation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS Biol. 2008;6:e264. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060264. [PubMed] 23. Ghim C-M, Goh K-I, Kahng B. Lethality and synthetic lethality in the genome-wide metabolic network of Escherichia coli. J Theor Biol. 2005;237:401–411. [PubMed] 24. Lee EJ, Goh K-I, Kahng B, Kim D. Robustness of the avalanche dynamics in data-packet transport on scale-free networks. Phys Rev E. 2005;71:056108. 25. Kim J-H, Goh K-I, Kahng B, Kim D. Probabilistic prediction in scale-free networks: diameter changes. Phys Rev Lett. 2003;91:058701. [PubMed] 26. Newman MEJ. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:8577–8582. [PubMed] 27. Pons P, Latapy M. Computing communities in large networks using random walks. J Graph Alg Appl. 2006;10:191–218. 28. Nairn AV, York WS, Harris K, Hall EM, Pierce JM, et al. Regulation of glycan structures in animal tissues: transcript profiling of glycan-related genes. J Biol Chem. 2008;283:17298–17313. [PubMed] 29. Comelli EM, Head SR, Gilmartin T, Whisenant T, Haslam SM, et al. A focused microarray approach to functional glycomics: transcriptional regulation of the glycome. Glycobiology. 2006;16:117–131. [PubMed] 30. Ishii A, Ikeda T, Hitoshi S, Fujimoto I, Torii T, et al. Developmental changes in the expression of glycogenes and the content of N-glycans in the mouse cerebral cortex. Glycobiology. 2007;17:261–276. [PubMed] 31. Csete ME, Doyle JC. Reverse engineering of biological complexity. Science. 2002;295:1664–1669. [PubMed] 32. Campbell C, Stanley P. A dominant mutation to ricin resistance in Chinese hamster ovary cells induces UDP-GlcNAc:glycopeptide β-4-N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase III activity. J Biol Chem. 1984;259:13370–13378. [PubMed] 33. Sburlati AR, Umaña P, Prati EGP, Bailey JE. Synthesis of bisected glycoforms of recombinant IFN-β by overexpression of β-1,4-N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase III in Chinese hamster ovary cells. Biotechnol Prog. 1998;14:189–192. [PubMed] 34. Umaña P, Jean-Mairet J, Moudry R, Amstutz H, Bailey JE. Engineered glycoforms of an antineuroblastoma IgG1 with optimized antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxic activity. Nat Biotechnol. 1999;17:176–180. [PubMed] 35. Davies J, Jiang L, Pan L-Z, LaBarre MJ, Anderson D, et al. Expression of GnTIII in a recombinant anti-CD20 CHO production cell line: expression of antibodies with altered glycoforms leads to an increase in ADCC through higher affinity for FcγRIII. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2001;74:288–294. [PubMed] 36. Kim D-H, Noh J-D, Jeong H. Scale-free trees: the skeletons of complex networks. Phys Rev E. 2004;70:046126. 37. Krambeck FJ, Betenbaugh MJ. A mathematical model of N-linked glycosylation. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2005;92:711–728. [PubMed] 38. Hossler P, Mulukutla BC, Hu W-S. Systems analysis of N-glycan processing in mammalian cells. PLoS ONE. 2007;2:e713. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000713. [PubMed] 39. Yusufi FNK, Park W, Lee MM, Lee D-Y. An alpha-numeric code for representing N-linked glycan structures in secreted glycoproteins. Bioproc Biosys Eng. 2009;32:97–107. 40. Lal A, Pang P, Kalelkar S, Romero PA, Herscovics A, et al. Substrate specificities of recombinant murine Golgi α1,2-mannosidases IA and IB and comparison with endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi processing α1,2-mannosidases. Glycobiology. 1998;8:981–995. [PubMed] 41. Tempel W, Karaveg K, Liu Z-J, Rose J, Wang B-C, et al. Structure of mouse Golgi α-mannosidase IA reveals the molecular basis for substrate specificity among class 1 (family 47 glycosylhydrolase) α1,2-mannosidases. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:29774–29786. [PubMed] 42. Hossler P, Goh L-T, Lee MM, Hu W-S. GlycoVis: visualizing glycan distribution in the protein N-glycosylation pathway in mammalian cells. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2006;95:946–960. [PubMed] 43. Kornfeld R, Kornfeld S. Assembly of asparagine-linked oligosaccharides. Annu Rev Biochem. 1985;54:631–664. [PubMed] 44. Leicht EA, Newman MEJ. Community structure in directed networks. Phys Rev Lett. 2008;100:118703. [PubMed] 45. CFG nomenclature. http://glycomics.scripps.edu/CFGnomenclature.pdf. |
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||
Chembiochem. 2004 Oct 4; 5(10):1334-47.
[Chembiochem. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Jan 8; 99(1):225-32.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002]Expert Rev Proteomics. 2006 Jun; 3(3):345-59.
[Expert Rev Proteomics. 2006]Brief Bioinform. 2004 Jun; 5(2):164-78.
[Brief Bioinform. 2004]Expert Rev Proteomics. 2006 Jun; 3(3):345-59.
[Expert Rev Proteomics. 2006]Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2005 Aug; 68(3):283-91.
[Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2005]Biotechnol Prog. 2005 Jan-Feb; 21(1):11-6.
[Biotechnol Prog. 2005]Science. 2001 Mar 23; 291(5512):2364-9.
[Science. 2001]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Jan 8; 99(1):225-32.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002]Expert Rev Proteomics. 2006 Jun; 3(3):345-59.
[Expert Rev Proteomics. 2006]Science. 2001 Mar 23; 291(5512):2370-6.
[Science. 2001]Nat Rev Genet. 2004 Feb; 5(2):101-13.
[Nat Rev Genet. 2004]Nat Biotechnol. 2008 Jun; 26(6):659-67.
[Nat Biotechnol. 2008]PLoS Biol. 2008 Nov 4; 6(11):e264.
[PLoS Biol. 2008]J Theor Biol. 2005 Dec 21; 237(4):401-11.
[J Theor Biol. 2005]Phys Rev Lett. 2003 Aug 1; 91(5):058701.
[Phys Rev Lett. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jun 6; 103(23):8577-82.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006]Brief Bioinform. 2004 Jun; 5(2):164-78.
[Brief Bioinform. 2004]J Biol Chem. 2008 Jun 20; 283(25):17298-313.
[J Biol Chem. 2008]Glycobiology. 2007 Mar; 17(3):261-76.
[Glycobiology. 2007]Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2005 Aug; 68(3):283-91.
[Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2005]Biotechnol Prog. 2005 Jan-Feb; 21(1):11-6.
[Biotechnol Prog. 2005]Science. 2002 Mar 1; 295(5560):1664-9.
[Science. 2002]J Biol Chem. 1984 Nov 10; 259(21):13370-8.
[J Biol Chem. 1984]Biotechnol Bioeng. 2001 Aug 20; 74(4):288-94.
[Biotechnol Bioeng. 2001]Nat Biotechnol. 1999 Feb; 17(2):176-80.
[Nat Biotechnol. 1999]Chembiochem. 2004 Oct 4; 5(10):1334-47.
[Chembiochem. 2004]Biotechnol Bioeng. 2005 Dec 20; 92(6):711-28.
[Biotechnol Bioeng. 2005]PLoS One. 2007 Aug 8; 2(1):e713.
[PLoS One. 2007]Brief Bioinform. 2004 Jun; 5(2):164-78.
[Brief Bioinform. 2004]Expert Rev Proteomics. 2006 Jun; 3(3):345-59.
[Expert Rev Proteomics. 2006]Glycobiology. 1998 Oct; 8(10):981-95.
[Glycobiology. 1998]J Biol Chem. 2004 Jul 9; 279(28):29774-86.
[J Biol Chem. 2004]Biotechnol Bioeng. 2005 Dec 20; 92(6):711-28.
[Biotechnol Bioeng. 2005]Biotechnol Bioeng. 2006 Dec 5; 95(5):946-60.
[Biotechnol Bioeng. 2006]Annu Rev Biochem. 1985; 54():631-64.
[Annu Rev Biochem. 1985]Phys Rev Lett. 2008 Mar 21; 100(11):118703.
[Phys Rev Lett. 2008]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jun 6; 103(23):8577-82.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006]