The immediate-early gene N51/KC encodes a protein which following expression in the baculovirus system and purification to apparent homogeneity is able to induce chemotaxis and intracellular Ca2+ flux, to compete for 125I-labeled interleukin-8 (IL-8) binding, and upon iodination, to bind specifically to human neutrophils. The activity of N51/KC can be distinguished from that of IL-8 by a number of criteria. First, at equivalent concentrations, the specific binding of [125I]N51/KC to human neutrophils is about 10 times less than that of [125I]IL-8. Second, the competition studies of [125I]IL-8 with IL-8 define a single class of high-affinity receptors, while the presence of both a high- and a low-affinity class of receptors is defined by N51/KC. Third, although the changes in intracellular Ca2+ of fura-2/AM-preloaded human neutrophils elicited by N51/KC and IL-8 are similar, pretreatment of the cells with N51/KC did not result in a loss of response to a subsequent treatment with IL-8; in contrast, treatment with IL-8 did result in the subsequent desensitization to N51/KC. To further characterize N51/KC, mutants and hybrids of N51/KC and IL-8 were produced and analyzed for the ability to compete for [125I]IL-8 binding and elicit intracellular Ca2+ changes in human neutrophils. Two important observations came from these studies. First, the N51/IL-8I hybrid in which the N51/KC sequence between cysteines 2 and 3 (or first disulfide bond) is replaced by the corresponding sequence in IL-8 shows IL-8-like properties, indicating that this region is important for specific receptor recognition. Second, the N51 delta III and IL-8 delta III C-terminus deletion mutants were biologically inactive, but the hybrid molecules N51/IL-8III and IL-8/N51III, in which the C termini were exchanged, had biological activities similar to that of the wild-type molecules, demonstrating that the presence of the C terminus is essential for the biological activity of these chemokines but does not confer receptor specificity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heinrich et al. (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: