Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Demonstrates increased receptor-independent cell surface binding of small dense LDL in fibroblasts, suggesting a mechanism for enhanced atherogenicity and tissue retention.
Small dense low density lipoprotein (LDL) particles have altered apolipoprotein (apo) B conformation and lowered affinity for the LDL receptor (J. Biol. Chem. 1994. 269: 511-519). Herein, we examine the interaction of small dense LDL with cell LDL receptor-independent binding sites. Compared to normal LDL, at low LDL cell media concentrations (<10 microg/ml), small dense LDL had decreased specific binding to the LDL receptor on normal fibroblasts at 4 degrees C, but a 2-fold increased binding to LDL receptor-independent cell sites. At higher LDL concentration (100 microg/ ml), LDL receptor-independent binding of small dense LDL was 4.5-fold that of normal LDL in normal fibroblasts, but greater (2- to 14- fold) in LDL receptor-negative fibroblasts. In LDL receptor-negative fibroblasts at 37 degrees C, small dense LDL had higher (3-fold) cell association than normal size LDL but no effective LDL degradation. At high LDL concentrations (> or =100 microg/ml), LDL binding to normal or LDL receptor-negative fibroblasts was not affected by several anti-apoB monoclonal antibodies or by cell pretreatment with proteases, chondroitinase, or neuraminidase. In contrast, pretreating normal and receptor-negative fibroblasts with heparinase and heparitinase decreased LDL cell binding by 35% and 50%, respectively. Similarly, preincubation of receptor-negative fibroblasts with sodium chlorate, an inhibitor of proteoglycan sulfation, decreased LDL binding by about 45%. We hypothesize that small dense LDL might be more atherogenic than normal size LDL due to decreased hepatic clearance by the LDL receptor, and enhanced anchoring to LDL receptor-independent binding sites in extrahepatic tissues (e.g., the arterial wall), a process mediated, in part, by cell surface proteoglycans.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Galeano et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: