1989
DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9258(18)83136-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ligand interactions of the cation-independent mannose 6-phosphate receptor

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

2
34
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 178 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
2
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, cation-dependent M6P receptor does not bind M6P at neutral pH, suggesting physiologic pH7.4 only allows CI-M6P receptors to be responsible for P-GUS uptake. 35,36 Currently, the mechanisms of action for brain uptake of [ 131 I]P-GUS by insulin and LPS remain speculative. The insulin receptor belongs to the receptor tyrosine kinase family which has endothelial nitric oxide synthase (NOS) as its downstream signal transduction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, cation-dependent M6P receptor does not bind M6P at neutral pH, suggesting physiologic pH7.4 only allows CI-M6P receptors to be responsible for P-GUS uptake. 35,36 Currently, the mechanisms of action for brain uptake of [ 131 I]P-GUS by insulin and LPS remain speculative. The insulin receptor belongs to the receptor tyrosine kinase family which has endothelial nitric oxide synthase (NOS) as its downstream signal transduction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There have also been multiple reports that bi-phosphorylated oligosaccharides exhibit higher affinity binding to the CI-MPR than mono-phosphorylated ligands (Distler et al, 1991;Tong et al, 1989) and a dynamic state of CI-MPR that brings the M6P mono-ester sites of domain 3 and 9 to within 45-85 Å has been proposed (Olson et al, 2004b). The distance between domain 3 and of the same chain in our model is ~58 Å. Conversely our dimeric model separates the M6P binding sites of the two domain 9s by a distance of ~22 Å which might be compatible with binding ligands bearing more than one M6P glycan (Fei et al, 2008).…”
Section: Model For Human Ci-mpr Extracellular Regionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the current U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved rhGAA ERT has a low abundance of M6P, particularly bisphosphorylated high-mannose N-glycans (bearing two M6Ps on same N-glycan), which severely limits cellular uptake of ERT at low interstitial enzyme concentrations. Bisphosphorylated N-glycans are known to have the highest binding affinity of all known carbohydrate structures for the CI-MPR and enable binding at low nanomolar concentrations ( 12 , 14 ). Approximately only 1% of N-glycans on the standard-of-care rhGAA ERT bear bis -M6P ( 13 , 15 ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Approximately only 1% of N-glycans on the standard-of-care rhGAA ERT bear bis -M6P ( 13 , 15 ). This ERT contains predominantly monophosphorylated glycans that are known to have approximately 3000-fold lower affinity for CI-MPR than bisphosphorylated N-glycans ( 14 , 15 ). Because monophosphorylated N-glycans cannot bind the CI-MPR at low nanomolar enzyme concentrations, this leads to inefficient cellular uptake and lysosomal delivery ( 14 ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation