Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In vitro experimental study reveals superagonist activity despite reduced binding affinity for an EGF/TGF-alpha chimera in EGFR-expressing cells, highlighting complex ligand-receptor dynamics.
It has been assumed that substitution of homologous regions of transforming growth factor alpha (TGF-alpha) into epidermal growth factor (EGF) can be used to probe ligand-receptor recognition without detrimental effects on ligand characteristics for the human EGF receptor (EGFR). We show that a chimera of murine (m) EGF in which the carboxyl-terminal tail is substituted for that of TGF-alpha (mEGF/TGF-alpha44-50) results in complex features that belie this initial simplistic assumption. Comparison of EGF and mEGF/TGF-alpha44-50 in equilibrium binding assays showed that although the relative binding affinity of the chimera was reduced 80-200-fold, it was more potent than EGF in mitogenesis assays using NR6/HER cells. This superagonist activity could not be attributed to differences in ligand processing or to binding to other members of the c-erbB family. It appeared to be due, in part, to choice of an EGFR-overexpressing target cell where high receptor number compensated for the low affinity of the ligand; it also appeared to be related to the ability of the chimera to activate the EGFR tyrosine kinase. Thus, when EGFR autophosphorylation was measured, mEGF/TGF-alpha44-50 was more potent than EGF, despite its low affinity. When tested using chicken embryo fibroblasts, substitution of the TGF-alpha carboxyl-terminal tail into mEGF failed to enhance its binding affinity for chicken EGFRs; however, the chimera was intermediate in potency between TGF-alpha and mEGF in mitogenesis assays. Our results suggest a contextual requirement for EGFR recognition which is ligand-specific. Further, the unpredictable responses to chimeric ligands underline the complex nature of the processes of ligand recognition, receptor activation, and the ensuing cellular response.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Puddicombe et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: