Transfer of Resistance to Selective Conditions from Fibroblasts with Mutant Feedback-Resistant Phosphoribosylpyrophosphate Synthetase to Normal Cells

A Form of Metabolic Cooperation
  • E. Zoref
  • A. de Vries
  • O. Sperling
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series

Abstract

A mutant phosphoribosylpyrophosphate (PRPP) synthetase, recently found in our laboratory to be the primary abnormality underlying the excessive purine production in a family affected with primary metabolic gout (1,2), was used as a marker for the study of metabolic cooperation between cultured human fibroblasts (3). In physiological cellular milieu, the mutation is manifest in superactivity of the enzyme which is due to decreased sensitivity to feedback inhibition by several physiological intracellular inhibitors such as adenosine-5′-diphosphate, guanosine-5′-diphosphate and 2,3-diphosphoglyceric acid. The superactivity of the enzyme was shown to cause increased availability of its reaction product PRPP, a key substrate for both the de novo and salvage pathways of purine nucleotide synthesis. Accordingly, the mutant cell exhibits excessive de novo synthesis of purines as well as an improved capacity to synthesize purine nucleotides by the salvage pathway. Both properties render the mutant cell a suitable marker for the study of metabolic cooperation, the increased salvage capacity allowing selection between normal and mutant cells, and the excessive de novo purine synthesis allowing determination of the proportion of mutant cells in culture containing a mixture of mutant and normal cells.

Keywords

Phosphorus Propa Adenine Thymidine Purine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Sperling, O., Persky-Brosh, S., Boer, P. and de Vries, A. Biochem. Med., 7:389–395, 1973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zoref, E., de Vries, A. and Sperling, O. J. Clin. Invest., 56:1093–1099, 1975.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zoref, E., de Vries, A. and Sperling, O. Nature, (London) 260:786–788, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Green, E.D. and Martin, D.W. Jr., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 70:3698–3702, 1973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cox, R.P., Krause, M.R., Balis, M.E. and Dancis, J. in Cell Communication (edit, by Cox, R.P.), 67–95, (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1974).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Subak-Sharpe, J.H., Burke, R.R. and Pitts, J.D. J. Cell Sci., 4:353–367, 1969.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seegmiller, J.E., Rosenbloom, F.M. and Kelley, W.N. Science, 155:1682–1684, 1967.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cox, R.P., Krause, M.R., Balis, M.E. and Dancis, J. Exp. Cell Res., 74:251–268, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pitts, J.D., in Growth Control in Cell Cultures, Ciba Foundation Symposium, (edit, by Wolstenholme, G.E.W., and Knight, J.), 89–98 (Churchill & Livingstone, London, 1971).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Zoref
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. de Vries
    • 1
    • 2
  • O. Sperling
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Chemical PathologyTel-Aviv University Medical SchoolTel-HashomerIsrael
  2. 2.Rogoff-Wellcome Medical Research InstituteBeilinson Medical CenterPetah TikvaIsrael

Personalised recommendations