SumlnaryCD14 is a 55-kD protein found as a glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI)-anchored protein on the surface of monocytes, macrophages, and polymorphonuclear leukocytes, and as a soluble protein in the blood. Both forms of CD14 participate in the serum-dependent responses of cells to bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS). While CD14 has been described as a receptor for complexes of LPS with LPS-binding protein (LBP), there has been no direct evidence showing whether a ternary complex of LPS, LBP, and CD14 is formed, or whether CD14 binds LPS directly. Using nondenaturing polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (native PAGE), we show that recombinant soluble CD14 (rsCD14) binds LPS in the absence of LBP or other proteins. Binding of LPS to CD14 is stable and of low stoichiometry (one or two molecules of LPS per rsCD14). Recombinant LBP (rLBP) does not form detectable ternary complexes with rsCD14 and LPS, but it does accelerate the binding of LPS to rsCD14, rLBP facilitates the interaction of LPS with rsCD14 at substoichiometric concentrations, suggesting that LBP functions catalytically, as a lipid transfer protein. Complexes of LPS and rsCD14 formed in the absence of LBP or other serum proteins strongly stimulate integrin function on PMN and expression of E-selectin on endothelial cells, demonstrating that LBP is not necessary for CD14-dependent stimulation of cells. These results suggest that CD14 acts as a soluble and cell surface receptor for LPS, and that LBP may function primarily to accelerate the binding of LPS to CD14. R cent work has described several serum and cell surface proteins that are necessary for responses of leukocytes to low concentrations of bacterial LPS (endotoxin) (1). LPSbinding protein (LBP),I an acute phase reactant, binds LPS (2) and greatly enhances the sensitivity of cells to LPS (3). Normal serum and plasma also enhance responses to LPS, and a multicomponent factor termed septin has been proposed to serve this function (4). LBP (5) and septin (4) each bind to LPS-coated particles and promote the interaction of these particles with CD14 (6, 7), a glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI)-anchored protein of monocytes, macrophages, and PMN (8, 9, 10). CD14 is necessary for serum-or LBPmediated responses of cells to LPS, such as the production 1 Abbreviations used in this paper: CHO, Chinese hamster ovary; ELPS, sheep erythrocytes coated with LPS; ELPS-LBP, ELPS opsonized with LBP; GPI, glycosylphosphatidylinositol; HAP, Dulbecco's PBS with 0.5 U/ml aprotinin, 0.05% human serum albumin, 3 mM D-glucose; HUVEC, human umbilical vein endothelial cells; LBP, LPS-binding protein; NHP, normal human plasma; PD-EDTA, Dulbecco's PBS lacking Ca 2+ and Mg 2+ with 1 mM EDTA; Ra, strain R60; Re, strain R595; rLBP, recombinant LBP; rsCD14, recombinant soluble CD14. of TNF by monocytes (6) and an increase in the adhesive properties of 132-integrins on PMN (7).Cells that do not express CD14, such as endothelial cells, also respond to low concentrations of LPS in the presence of serum. We have shown that these resp...

Delivery of protein therapeutics often requires frequent injections because of low activity or rapid clearance, thereby placing a burden on patients and caregivers. Using glycoengineering, we have increased and prolonged the activity of proteins, thus allowing reduced frequency of administration. Glycosylation analogs with new N-linked glycosylation consensus sequences introduced into the protein were screened for the presence of additional N-linked carbohydrates and retention of in vitro activity. Suitable consensus sequences were combined in one molecule, resulting in glycosylation analogs of rHuEPO, leptin, and Mpl ligand. All three molecules had substantially increased in vivo activity and prolonged duration of action. Because these proteins were of three different classes (rHuEPO is an N-linked glycoprotein, Mpl ligand an O-linked glycoprotein, and leptin contains no carbohydrate), glycoengineering may be generally applicable as a strategy for increasing the in vivo activity and duration of action of proteins. This strategy has been validated clinically for glycoengineered rHuEPO (darbopoetin alfa).

Investigators using anti-EpoR antibodies for immunoblotting and immunostaining have reported erythropoietin receptor (EpoR) expression in nonhematopoietic tissues including human tumors. However, these antibodies detected proteins of 66 to 78 kDa, significantly larger than the predicted molecular weight of EpoR (56-57 kDa). We investigated the specificity of these antibodies and showed that they all detected non-EpoR proteins. C-20 detected 3 proteins in tumor cell lines (35, 66, and 100 kDa). Sequences obtained from preparative gels had similarity to the C-20-immunizing peptide. The 66-kDa protein was a heat shock protein (HSP70) to which antibody binding was abrogated in peptide competition experiments. Antibody M-20 readily identified a 59-kDa EpoR protein. However, neither M-20 nor C-20 was suitable for detection of EpoR using immunohistochemical methods. We concluded that these antibodies have limited utility for detecting EpoR. Thus, reports of EpoR expression in tumor cells using these antibodies should be viewed with caution. (Blood.

No abstract

IntroductionErythropoietin receptor (EpoR) and its cognate ligand erythropoietin (Epo) function to prevent apoptosis of erythroid progenitors, allow for erythrocyte maturation, and are essential for definitive erythropoiesis. However, expression of functional EpoR was also reported in endothelial cells (reviewed by Arcasoy 1 ). rHuEpo and other erythropoiesisstimulating agents (ESAs) were reported to stimulate nitric oxide synthase expression, induce proliferation in endothelial cell preparations, and stimulate angiogenesis in chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane, mouse uterine, and rodent tumor models through direct stimulation of endothelial EpoR.Some data also suggested that EpoR may be functionally expressed in other nonhematopoietic cells, such as cardiac myocytes, kidney, and neuronal cells, and ESAs have been reported to be cytoprotective for these cells. 1 Antiapoptotic signaling pathways downstream of EpoR were reportedly activated by ESAs to inhibit cell death associated with cytotoxic insult (eg, ischemia, reperfusion injury, and exposure to cytotoxins) both in vitro and in vivo. It has also been hypothesized that alternative ESA-binding receptor complexes, such as a heteroreceptor composed of the granulocytemacrophage colony-stimulating factor/interleukin-3 (IL-3)/IL-5 receptor ␤-common chain and EpoR, may mediate the cytoprotective activities of ESAs. 2 These reports have formed the basis for a number of clinical studies examining the "direct" action of ESAs in diseases, such as stroke and myocardial infarction.However, the data surrounding the expression of functional EpoR or alternative receptors in endothelial and other nonhematopoietic cells are conflicting and confounded for a number of reasons. First, reports describing EpoR protein expression used nonspecific antibodies, which produce false positive results. 3,4 Second, when surface EpoR was examined on nonerythroid cells using rHuEpo-binding studies, the reported receptor characteristics were very different from that known for erythroid EpoR: that is, receptor affinity was extremely low and receptor number unusually high compared with erythroid cells. [5][6][7] Although alternative ESA receptor complexes 2 could theoretically explain differences in the affinity and receptor number, other studies have found no evidence for alternative ESA receptor complexes. 8,9 In addition, there are conflicting data surrounding the presence of functional endothelial EpoR. ESAs were unable to stimulate the expression of vasoactive factors in vitro, 10 did not induce endothelial nitric oxide synthase expression or response in rats, 11 did not stimulate vasoconstriction of arterioles in humans, 12 and did not influence vascular density in rodent tumor models. 13 Other studies were confounded by cross-species inactivity of rHuEpo: rHuEpo had no effect on chicken erythroid cells 14 yet reportedly stimulated angiogenesis in a chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane assay. 15 Similarly, in some nonhematopoietic tissue protection in vivo models, ESAs were unable to ...

CD14 is a 55-kDa glycoprotein which binds lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and enables LPS-dependent responses in a variety of cells. Recent limited proteolysis studies have implicated a region in CD14 between amino acids 57 and 64 as being involved in LPS interaction. To specifically assess the importance of this region with respect to LPS binding, we constructed a mutant sCD14 (sCD14 delta 57-64) lacking amino acids 57-64. sCD14 delta 57-64 was isolated from the serum-free conditioned medium of this cell line, and, in all assays, the purified protein failed to recognize LPS or enable LPS-dependent responses in cells. We also demonstrated that the region between amino acids 57 and 64 is required for binding of a neutralizing CD14 mAb, MEM-18. Native polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis assays were used to demonstrate that MEM-18 and LPS compete for the same binding site on CD14. These data strongly suggest that the region spanning amino acids 57-64 binds LPS and that formation of sCD14.LPS complex is required in order for sCD14-mediated responses to occur.

No abstract

Erythropoietin receptor (EpoR) has been reported to be overexpressed in tumours and has raised safety concerns regarding the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) to treat anaemia in cancer patients. To investigate the potential for EpoR to be overexpressed in tumours, we have evaluated human tumours for amplification of the EPOR locus, levels of EPOR transcripts, and expression of surface EpoR protein. Gene amplification analysis of 1083 solid tumours found that amplification of the EPOR locus was rare with frequencies similar to other non-oncogenes. EPOR transcript levels in tumours and tumour cell lines were low in comparison with bone marrow and were equivalent to, or lower than, levels in normal tissues of tumour origin. Although EpoR mRNA was detected in some tumour lines, no EpoR could be detected on the cell surface using 125 I-Epo binding studies. This may be due to the lack of EpoR protein expression or lack of cell-surface-trafficking factors, such as Jak2. Taken together, we have found no evidence that EpoR is overexpressed in tumours or gets to the surface of tumour cells. This suggests that there is no selective advantage for tumours to overexpress EpoR and questions the functional relevance of EpoR gene transcription in tumours.