Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The properties of a cholinesterase from mucosal cells of rat intestine have been characterized. The enzyme was identified as butyrylcholinesterase because it was more sensitive to iso-OMPA (IC50 = 1.0 x 10(-6) M) than to BW284C51 (IC50 = 5.5 x 10(-5) M) and was not inhibited by substrate excess. It displayed a higher affinity for acetylthiocholine than for butyrylthiocholine. A major molecular form was observed sedimenting at 5.9 S. Two other minor molecular forms were identified as a hydrophilic tetramer (G4, sedimenting at 10.5 S) and a monomer (G1, sedimenting at 4.3 S). The 5.9 S component was referred to as "G" form (G for globular) and not "G2" as usual dimers for the following reasons: (i) the G form was unaffected by the reducing agents, beta-mercaptoethanol and dithiothreitol, which converted disulfide-linked dimers of acetylcholinesterase into monomers, (ii) the G form was shifted from 5.9 to 3.4 S when the sucrose gradient contained Triton X-100. This value of 3.4 S (in Triton X-100) appeared too low for a typical G2 form. The shift in the S value was partly reversible: the 3.4 S form resedimented at 5.2 S in the absence of detergent. The behavior of the G form in sucrose gradients indicated that it was amphiphilic. This was confirmed in nondenaturing electrophoreses and also by quantitative binding of the G form to octyl-Sepharose. The hydrophobic domain of the G form was not a glycolipid, as shown by its insensitivity to Bacillus thuringiensis phosphatidylinositol-specific phospholipase C and its nonaggregating properties in the absence of nondenaturing detergent.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sine et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: