Advertisement

Histochemistry

, Volume 88, Issue 3–6, pp 505–512 | Cite as

Are Z-Arg-Gly-Phe-Phe-Leu-MNA and Z-Arg-Gly-Phe-Phe-Pro-MNA suitable substrates for the demonstration of cathepsin D activity?

  • Z. Lojda
  • J. Šmódová
  • A. Barth
  • H. Ueberberg
Article
  • 33 Downloads

Summary

The suitability of Z-Arg-Gly-Phe-Phe-Leu-MNA and Z-Arg-Gly-Phe-Phe-Pro-MNA for the assessment of cathepsin D activity was tested in biochemical and histochemical experiments. Substrates were dissolved in dimethylformamide and used at 0.1–0.5 mM in various buffers over a pH range of 3.5–7.4. Homogenates of various rat organs and isolated purified enzymes [cathepsin D from bovine spleen, dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP) I.V from porcine kidney and rat lung] were used as enzyme sources. Pepstatin, di-isopropylfluorophosphate (DFP),p-chloromercuribenzoate,o-phenanthroline and a series of DPP IV inhibitors were used in inhibitor experiments. At pH 3.5 and 5.0, substrates were used in a two-step postcoupling procedure with aminopeptidase M and dipeptidyl peptidase IV as auxiliary enzymes and Fast Blue BB as coupling agent. Results were compared with those obtained with haemoglobin. Above pH 5.0 substrates were used in a one-step postcoupling procedure.

Cryostat sections of snap-frozen or cold aldehyde-fixed tissue pieces of various rat organs and biopsies of human jejunal mucosa were used in histochemical experiments. As in biochemical tests a two-step procedure was used in the pH range 3.5–5.0, but Fast Blue B was used in the second step for the simultancous coupling. Above pH 5.0 a onestep simultaneous azo coupling procedure was used with Fast Blue B as coupling agent.

At pH 3.5 the hydrolysis rate of both synthetic substrates was about 100 x lower than that of haemoglobin when cathepsin D from bovine spleen was used. The activity was inhibited by pepstatin. With increasing pH the hydrolysis rate of Z-Arg-Gly-Phe-Phe-Pro-MNA increased, while that of Z-Arg-Gly-Phe-Phe-Leu-MNA decreased when organ homogenates were used as enzyme sources. However, the activity was not inhibited by pepstatin. It was inhibited by DFP. The extent of the inhibition with other substances was species and organ dependent. Z-Arg-Gly-Phe-Phe-Pro-MNA was also cleaved by isolated and purified DPP IV of porcine kidney and rat lung and the activity was inhibited by DFP and DPP IV inhibitors.

In histochemical experiments the staining obtained with both synthetic substrates at pH 3.5 was weak and rather diffuse, with only slight accentuation or none at all in the lysosomal region of cells. In the pH range 5.5–7.4 a very distinct reaction was observed with Z-Arg-Gly-Phe-Phe-Pro-MNA only. The reaction product was localized in the brush border of enterocytes and of cells of the proximal kidney tubules. Endothelial cells of glomeruli and capillaries of the propria of the human jejunum also displayed a positive reaction. Lymphocytes in the propria of rat small intestine reacted to some extent. The reaction was inhibited by DFP. The extent of the inhibition with other substances varied.

Z-Arg-Gly-Phe-Phe-Leu-MNA and Z-Arg-Gly-Phe-Phe-Pro-MNA are not efficient substrates for the assessment of cathepsin D activity. In histochemical studies diffusion artifacts must always be considered. In the pH range 5.5–7.4, Z-Arg-Gly-Phe-Phe-Pro-MNA is cleaved by a serine endopeptidase and by a metalloendopeptidase. It remains to be established whether prolyl endopeptidase or DPP IV (or both) and which metalloendopeptidase are responsible for the cleavage. In the evaluation of enterobiopsies the demonstration of this activity is a sensitive means for the assessment of the state of the brush border.

Keywords

Dipeptidyl Peptidase Porcine Kidney Prolyl Endopeptidase Proximal Kidney Tubule Bovine Spleen 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anson ML (1937) The estimation of cathepsin with heamoglobin and the partial purification of cathepsin. J Gen Physiol 20:565–574Google Scholar
  2. Barrett AJ (1977a) Cathepsin D and other carboxyl proteinases. In: barrett AJ (ed) Proteinases in mammalian cells and tissues. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 209–248Google Scholar
  3. Barrett AJ (1977b) Human cathepsin D. In: Tang J (ed) Acid proteases. Plenum Press, New York, pp 291–300Google Scholar
  4. Barrett AJ, McDonald JK (1980) Mammalian proteases: a glossary and bibliography. vol 1: Endopeptidases. Academic Press, London New York, pp 338–350Google Scholar
  5. Bird JWC, Schwartz WN, Spanier AM (1977) Degradation of myofibrillar proteins by cathepsins B and D. Acta Biol Med Germ 36:1587–1604Google Scholar
  6. Bird JWC, Spanier AM, Schwartz WN (1978) Cathepsin B and D: proteolytic activity and ultrastructural localization in skeletal muscle. In: Segal HL, Doyle DJ (eds) Protein turnover and lysosome function. Academic Press, New York, pp 589–604Google Scholar
  7. Contractor SF, Krakauer K (1976) Immunofluorescent localization of cathepsin D in trophoblastic cells in tissue culture. Beitr Pathol 158:445–449Google Scholar
  8. Eggstein M, Kreutz FH (1955) Vergleichende Untersuchung zur quantitativen Eiweißbestimmung im Liquor und eiweißarmen Lösungen. Klin Wochenschr 33:879–844Google Scholar
  9. Gossrau R, Lojda Z (1980) Study on dipetidylpeptidase II (DPP II). Histochemistry 70:53–76Google Scholar
  10. Kenny AJ (1986) Endopeptidase — 24.11: An cctoenzyme capable of hydrolysing regulatory peptides at the surface of many different cell types. In: Kreutzberg GW, Reddington M, Zimmermann H (eds) Cellular biology of ectoenzymes. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 257–271Google Scholar
  11. Kenny AJ, Booth AG, George SG, Ingram J, Kershaw D, Wood EJ, Young AR (1976) Dipetidyl peptidase IV, a kidney brush border serine peptidase. Biochem J 157:169–182Google Scholar
  12. Kirk JE (1969) Enzymes of the arterial wall. Academic Press, New York London, pp 338–353Google Scholar
  13. Knisatschek H, Bauer K (1979) Characterization of “thyroliberindeamidating enzyme” as a post-proline-cleaving enzyme. J Biol Chem 254:10936–10943Google Scholar
  14. Lineweaver H, Burk D (1934) The determination of enzyme dissociation constants. J Am Chem Soc 56:658–666Google Scholar
  15. Lojda Z (1975) The use of hexazonium-p-rosaniline in the histochemical demonstration of peptidases. Histochemistry 44:323–335Google Scholar
  16. Lojda Z (1977) Studies on glycyl-proline naphthylamidase: I. Lymphocytes. Histochemistry 54:299–309Google Scholar
  17. Lojda Z (1979a) Studies on dipeptidyl)amino)peptidase IV (glycylproline naphthylamidase): II. Blood vessels. Histochemistry 59:153–166Google Scholar
  18. Lojda Z (1979b) The histochemical demonstration of brush border endopeptidase. Histochemistry 64:205–221Google Scholar
  19. Lojda Z (1981) Proteinases in pathology. The usefulness of histochemical methods. J Histochem Cytochem 29:481–493Google Scholar
  20. Lojda Z (1984) Die Histochemie der Proteasen. Acta Histochem [Suppl] 30:9–29Google Scholar
  21. Lojda Z (1985) The importance of protease histochemistry in pathology. Histochem J 17:1063–1089Google Scholar
  22. Lojda Z (1987) Histochemistry of endopeptidases. State of the art. Biol Zentralbl (in press)Google Scholar
  23. Lojda Z (1988) Topochemistry of dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP IV, E.C. 3.4.14.5) with special reference to lymphocytes, gut mucosa and the vascular wall in normal and some pathological conditions. Beitr Wirkstofforsch (Halle) 2 (in press)Google Scholar
  24. Lojda Z, Gossrau R (1983) Study on aminopeptidase A. Histochmistry 67:267–290Google Scholar
  25. Lojda Z, Gossrau R (1983) Histochemical demonstration of enteropeptidase activity. New method with a synthetic substrate and its comparison with trypsinogen procedure. Histochemistry 78:251–270Google Scholar
  26. Lojda Z, Ueberberg H (1986) Some remarks on the histochemical detection of cathepsin D activity. Histochem J 18:131Google Scholar
  27. Lojda Z, Ucberberg H, Šmídová J (1986) Are BZ-Arg-Gly-Phe-Phe-Leu-MNA and BZ-Arg-Gly-Phe-Phe-Pro-MNA suitable substrates for the assessment of cathepsin D activity? Histochem J 18:664Google Scholar
  28. Mort JS, Poole AR, Decker R (1981) Immunofluorescent localization of cathepsin B and D in human fibroblasts. J Histochem Cytochem 29:649–657Google Scholar
  29. Poole AR, Mort JS (1981) Biochemical and immunological studies of lysosomal and related proteinases in health and disease. J Histochem Cytochem 29:494–500Google Scholar
  30. Poole AR, Dingle JT, Barrett SJ (1972) The immunocytochemical demonstration of cathepsin D. J Histochem Cytochem 20:261–265Google Scholar
  31. Poole AR, Hembry RM, Dingle JT (1973) Extracellular localization of cathepsin D in ossifying cartilage. Calcif Tissue Res 12:313–321Google Scholar
  32. Poole AR, Hembry RM, Dingle JT (1974) Cathepsin D in cartilage: the immunohistochemical demonstration of extracellular enzyme in normal and pathological conditions. J Cell Sci 14:139–161Google Scholar
  33. Poole AR, Hembry RM, Dingle JT, Pinder I, Ring EFJ, Cosh J (1976) Secretion and localization of cathepsin D in synovial tissues removed from rheumatoid and traumatized joints. An immunohistochemical study. Arthritis Rheum 19:1295–1307Google Scholar
  34. Reinharz A, Roth M (1971) Studies on pituitary cathepsin D with artificial substrates. Enzyme 12:458–466Google Scholar
  35. Rojas-Espinosa O, Dannenberg AM, Sternberger LA, Tauda T (1974) The role of cathepsin D in the pathogenesis of tuberculosis: a histo-chemical study emplying unlabelled antibodies and the peroxidase-antiperoxidase complex. Am J Pathol 74: 1–10Google Scholar
  36. Smith RE (1984) Identification of protease enzymes after analytical isoelectric focusing using fluorogenic substrates impregnated into cellulose membranes. J Histochem Cytochem 32:1265–1274Google Scholar
  37. Smith RE, van Frank RM (1975) The use of amino acid derivatives of 4-methoxy-β-naphthylamine for the assay and subcellular localization of tissue proteinases. In: Dingle JT, Deane RT (eds) Lysosomes in biology and pathology, vol 4. North-Holland. Amsterdam, pp 193–249Google Scholar
  38. Woessner JF Jr (1977) Specificity and biological role of cathepsin D. In: Tang J (ed) Acid proteases. Plenum Press, New York, pp 313–327Google Scholar
  39. Yokota S, Atsumi S (1983) Immunoelectron microscopic localization of cathepsin D in lysosomes of rat nerve cells. Histochemistry 79:345–352Google Scholar
  40. Yokota S, Tsuji H, Kato K (1985) Immunocytochemical localization of cathepsin D in lysosomes of cortical collecting tubule cells of the rat kidney. J Histochem Cytochem 33:191–200Google Scholar
  41. Yoshimoto T, Walter R (1977) Post-proline dipeptidyl aminopeptidase (dipeptidyl aminopeptidase IV) from lamb kidney. Biochim Biophys Acta 485:391–401Google Scholar
  42. Yoshimoto T, Fischl M, Orlowski RC, Walter R (1978) Post-proline cleaving enzyme and post-proline dipeptidyl aminopeptidase. J Biol Chem 253:3708–3716Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Z. Lojda
    • 1
  • J. Šmódová
    • 1
  • A. Barth
    • 2
  • H. Ueberberg
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratory of Histochemistry, Faculty of MedicineCharles UniversityPrague 2ČSSR
  2. 2.Department of Biochemistry, section of BiosciencesMartin-Luther-UniversityHalle/SaaleGerman Democratic Republic
  3. 3.Department of Experimental PathologyDr. C. ThomaeBiberach an der RissFederal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations