Advertisement

European Biophysics Journal

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 209–215 | Cite as

Quantification of the effect of glycocalyx condition on membrane receptor interactions using an acoustic wave sensor

  • Michael Saitakis
  • Electra Gizeli
Biophysics Letter

Abstract

The effect of the cell glycocalyx on the binding of a membrane receptor, class I major histocompatibility complex (MHC) human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A2, to an immobilized anti-HLA antibody was investigated using an acoustic sensor based on a Love wave geometry. The enzyme neuraminidase was used to remove sialic acid residues from the cell glycocalyx. Real-time measurements of the amplitude of the acoustic wave showed that treatment with neuraminidase facilitates HLA/anti-HLA-mediated cell attachment via a 3.6-fold increase of the two-dimensional (2D) binding constant of the interaction. This could be attributed to better approach of binding partners due to favorable condition of the desialylated glycocalyx. The results underline the importance of microtopological factors in membrane receptor binding and reveal the potential of the Love wave sensor and 2D binding parameters for studying cell–substrate binding events.

Keywords

Glycocalyx HLA SAW sensor Two-dimensional kinetics Two-dimensional affinity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of ELKE, University of Crete (research grant K. A. 2732) and the General Secretariat of Research and Technology (PENED 03ED623).

References

  1. Alon R, Chen S, Puri KD, Finger EB, Springer TA (1997) The kinetics of l-selectin tethers and the mechanics of selectin-mediated rolling. J Cell Biol 138:1169–1180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell GI, Dembo M, Bongrand P (1984) Cell adhesion. Competition between nonspecific repulsion and specific bonding. Biophys J 45:1051–1064CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bierer BE, Herrmann SH, Brown CS, Burakoff SJ, Golan DE (1987) Lateral mobility of class I histocompatibility antigens in B lymphoblastoid cell membranes: modulation by cross-linking and effect of cell density. J Cell Biol 105:1147–1152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bodnar A, Bacso Z, Jenei A, Jovin TM, Edidin M, Damjanovich S, Matko J (2003) Class I HLA oligomerization at the surface of B cells is controlled by exogenous beta(2)-microglobulin: implications in activation of cytotoxic T lymphocytes. Int Immunol 15:331–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bromley SK, Iaboni A, Davis SJ, Whitty A, Green JM, Shaw AS, Weiss A, Dustin ML (2001) The immunological synapse and CD28-CD80 interactions. Nat Immunol 2:1159–1166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper MA (2002) Optical biosensors in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1:515–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper MA (2006) Non-optical screening platforms: the next wave in labal-free screening? Drug Discov Today 11:1068–1074CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper MA, Singleton VT (2007) A survey of the 2001 to 2005 quartz crystal microbalance biosensor literature: applications of acoustic physics to the analysis of biomolecular interactions. J Mol Recognit 20:154–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dustin ML, Ferguson LM, Chan PY, Springer TA, Golan DE (1996) Visualization of CD2 interaction with LFA-3 and determination of the two-dimensional dissociation constant for adhesion receptors in a contact area. J Cell Biol 132:465–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dustin ML, Golan DE, Zhu DM, Miller JM, Meier W, Davies EA, van der Merwe PA (1997) Low affinity interaction of human or rat T cell adhesion molecule CD2 with its ligand aligns adhering membranes to achieve high physiological affinity. J Biol Chem 272:30889–30898CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dustin ML, Bromley SK, Davis MM, Zhu C (2001) Identification of self through two-dimensional chemistry and synapses. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 17:133–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ergezen E, Hong S, Barbee KA, Lec R (2007) Real time monitoring of the effects of heparan sulfate proteoglycan (HSPG) and surface charge on the cell adhesion process using thickness shear mode (TSM) sensor. Biosens Bioelectron 22:2256–2260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fooksman DR, Gronvall GK, Tang Q, Edidin M (2006) Clustering class I MHC modulates sensitivity of T cell recognition. J Immunol 176:6673–6680PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuster MM, Esko JD (2005) The sweet and sour of cancer: glycans as novel therapeutic targets. Nat Rev Cancer 5:526–542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gizeli E, Bender F, Rasmusson A, Saha K, Josse F, Cernosek R (2003) Sensitivity of the acoustic waveguide biosensor to protein binding as a function of the waveguide properties. Biosens Bioelectron 18:1399–1406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gronewold TM (2007) Surface acoustic wave sensors in the bioanalytical field: recent trends and challenges. Anal Chim Acta 603:119–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Heitmann V, Reiss B, Wegener J (2007) The quartz crystal microbalance in cell biology: basics and applications. In: Steinem C, Janshoff A (eds) Piezoelectric sensors. Springer, Berlin, pp 303–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hogan KT, Brown SL (1992) Localization and characterization of serologic epitopes on HLA-A2. Hum Immunol 33:185–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hollingsworth MA, Swanson BJ (2004) Mucins in cancer: protection and control of the cell surface. Nat Rev Cancer 4:45–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hong S, Ergezen E, Lec R, Barbee KA (2006) Real-time analysis of cell-surface adhesive interactions using thickness shear mode resonator. Biomaterials 27:5813–5820CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Huppa JB, Davis MM (2003) T-cell-antigen recognition and the immunological synapse. Nat Rev Immunol 3:973–983CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Janshoff A, Wegener J, Sieber M, Galla HJ (1996) Double-mode impedance analysis of epithelial cell monolayers cultured on shear wave resonators. Eur Biophys J 25:93–103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lakey JH, Raggett EM (1998) Measuring protein–protein interactions. Curr Opin Struct Biol 8:119–123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Li J, Thielemann C, Reuning U, Johannsmann D (2005) Monitoring of integrin-mediated adhesion of human ovarian cancer cells to model protein surfaces by quartz crystal resonators: evaluation in the impedance analysis mode. Biosens Bioelectron 20:1333–1340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Melzak K, Martin F, Newton MI, McHale G, Gizeli E (2002) Acoustic determination of polymer molecular weights and rotation times. J Polymer Sci B Polym Phys 40:1490–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mitsakakis K, Tsortos A, Kondoh J, Gizeli E (2009) Parametric study of SH-SAW device response to various types of surface perturbations. Sens Actuators B Chem 138:408–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oh S, Belz GT, Eichelberger MC (2001) Viral neuraminidase treatment of dendritic cells enhances antigen-specific CD8(+) T cell proliferation, but does not account for the CD4(+) T cell independence of the CD8(+) T cell response during influenza virus infection. Virology 286:403–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Parham P, Brodsky FM (1981) Partial purification and some properties of BB7.2. A cytotoxic monoclonal antibody with specificity for HLA-A2 and a variant of HLA-A28. Hum Immunol 3:277–299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Saha K, Bender F, Gizeli E (2003) Comparative study of IgG binding to proteins G and A: nonequilibrium kinetic and binding constant determination with the acoustic waveguide device. Anal Chem 75:835–842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Saitakis M, Dellaporta A, Gizeli E (2008) Measurement of two-dimensional binding constants between cell-bound major histocompatibility complex and immobilized antibodies with an acoustic biosensor. Biophys J 95:4963–4971CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Saitakis M, Tsortos A, Gizeli E (2010) Probing the interaction of a membrane receptor with a surface-attached ligand using whole cells on acoustic biosensors. Biosens Bioelectron 25:1688–1693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Shaw AS, Dustin ML (1997) Making the T cell receptor go the distance: a topological view of T cell activation. Immunity 6:361–369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Springer TA (1990) Adhesion receptors of the immune system. Nature 346:425–434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Tolentino TP, Wu J, Zarnitsyna VI, Fang Y, Dustin ML, Zhu C (2008) Measuring diffusion and binding kinetics by contact area FRAP. Biophys J 95:920–930CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Tsortos A, Papadakis G, Gizeli E (2008a) Shear acoustic wave biosensor for detecting DNA intrinsic viscosity and conformation: a study with QCM-D. Biosens Bioelectron 24:836–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tsortos A, Papadakis G, Mitsakakis K, Melzak KA, Gizeli E (2008b) Quantitative determination of size and shape of surface-bound DNA using an acoustic wave sensor. Biophys J 94:2706–2715CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. van der Merwe PA, Barclay AN, Mason DW, Davies EA, Morgan BP, Tone M, Krishnam AK, Ianelli C, Davis SJ (1994) Human cell-adhesion molecule CD2 binds CD58 (LFA-3) with a very low affinity and an extremely fast dissociation rate but does not bind CD48 or CD59. Biochemistry 33:10149–10160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wegener J, Janshoff A, Galla HJ (1998) Cell adhesion monitoring using a quartz crystal microbalance: comparative analysis of different mammalian cell lines. Eur Biophys J 28:26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wegener J, Seebach J, Janshoff A, Galla HJ (2000) Analysis of the composite response of shear wave resonators to the attachment of mammalian cells. Biophys J 78:2821–2833CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Wu J, Fang Y, Zarnitsyna VI, Tolentino TP, Dustin ML, Zhu C (2008) A coupled diffusion-kinetics model for analysis of contact-area FRAP experiment. Biophys J 95:910–919CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Biophysical Societies' Association 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, FO.R.T.HHeraklionGreece
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of CreteHeraklionGreece

Personalised recommendations