Caprine placental lactogen (cPL) cDNA was cloned by reverse transcription (RT)-PCR from total RNA of goat placenta. The PCR product encoding for the mature protein was gel purified, ligated to pGEM-T and finally subcloned into a pET8c prokaryotic expression vector. E. coli cells (BL-21) transformed with this vector overexpressed large amounts of cPL upon induction with Isopropyl-1-thio---galactopyranoside. The expressed protein, found in the inclusion bodies, was refolded and purified to homogeneity on Q-Sepharose and SPSepharose columns, yielding two electrophoretically pure fractions (cPL-Q and cPL-S), composed of over 98% of monomeric protein of the expected molecular mass of 23 kDa. Binding of cPL to the extracellular domain (ECD) of prolactin receptors (PRLR) from rat (r), rabbit (rb), and bovine (b), growth hormone receptors (GHR) from human (h) and rabbit, and binding to rabbit mammary gland membranes revealed similar binding profiles for cPL-Q, cPL-S and ovine (o)PL. Caprine PL was capable of forming 1:2 complexes with hGHR-ECD, rbGHR-ECD, rPRLR-ECD and rbPRLR-ECD whereas with bPRLR-ECD only a 1:1 complex was detected. The biological activity of both cPL fractions resulting from proper renaturation was further evidenced by their ability to stimulate proliferation of Nb 2 cells, FDC-P1 cells transfected with rabbit or human GHRs and by stimulation of -casein synthesis in rabbit and ovine mammary gland acini cultures.

Carp growth hormone (cGH) cDNA, in which Cys-123 was mutated to Ala, was prepared, transferred to the expression vector, expressed in Escherichia coli and the mutant was purified to homogeneity. The mutation only slightly improved yield of the monomeric fraction, indicating that Cys-123 is not involved in improper refolding. As compared to cGH, the mutant (cGH-C123A) exhibited lower binding affinity toward homologous liver receptors and lower bioactivity in a 3T3-F442A preadipocyte bioassay despite the fact that both hormones exhibited almost identical cross-reactivity with anti-cGH antibodies. These results, along with those of a structural comparison to hGH, suggest that Cys-123 is located in the hydrophobic core of the hormone, and is most likely affecting the conformation of the binding site. Dimeric forms of the hormone and its mutant were less active than their respective monomers. Homologous binding experiments using a carp liver microsomal fraction revealed a single receptor population with Kd = 0.77 nM and Bmax = 241 fmol/mg microsomal protein.

No abstract

No abstract

The cDNA of the extracellular domain of rabbit growth hormone receptor (rbGHR-ECD) was cloned in the prokaryotic expression vector pMON, to enable its expression in Escherichia coli after induction with nalidixic acid. The bacterially expressed rbPRLR-ECD protein, contained within the refractile-body pellet, was solubilized in 4.5 M urea, refolded, and purified on a Q-Sepharose column, pH 8, by stepwise elution with NaCl. The bioactive monomeric 28-kDa fraction was eluted in 0.15 M NaCl, yielding 50 mg/2.5 l of induced culture. The purified protein was over 98% homogeneous, as shown by SDS-PAGE in the presence or absence of reducing agent, and by chromatography on a Superdex column. Gel filtration was used to determine the stoichiometry of rbGHR-ECD's interaction with human (h), ovine (o), chicken (ch) and common carp (cc) GHs and with bovine (b) and caprine (c) placental lactogens (PLs). The formation of 2:1 complexes was indicated in all cases. Binding experiments using radiolabelled oGH as a ligand revealed it to be the most effective competitor, followed by bPL, cPL, hGH chGH and ccGH, with respective IC50 values of 0.27, 0.94, 1.55, 2.13, 41.9 and 51.2 nM. Rabbit GHR-ECD inhibited the bPL-inducible proliferation of FDC-P1 cells stably transfected with rbGHR and Nb2 cells possessing rat PRLR. The biological activity of oGH, hGH, cPL, bPL, chGH and ccGH was tested in the FDC-P1 cells stably transfected with rbGHR and yielded the respective EC50 values (in nM) of 0.024, 0.023, 0.021, 0.24, 4.71 and 0.49. These results indicate remarkable discrepancies between the binding capacities and biological activities: the possible reasons for these findings are discussed.