J. Lipid Res. Please sign the JLR Guestbook
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

A more recent version of this article appeared on December 1, 2003

Papers In Press, published online ahead of print September 1, 2003
J. Lipid Res., doi:10.1194/jlr.M300171-JLR200
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Accepted Manuscript)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
M300171-JLR200v1
44/12/2287    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Morton, R. E.
Right arrow Articles by Greene, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Morton, R. E.
Right arrow Articles by Greene, D. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Submitted on April 24, 2003
Revised on August 29, 2003
Accepted on August 29, 2003

CETP and lipid transfer inhibitor protein are uniquely affected by the negative charge density of the lipid and protein domains of LDL

Richard E. Morton and Diane J. Greene

Cell Biology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195

Corresponding Author: mortonr{at}ccf.org

Lipoprotein surface charge influences CETP activity and its association with lipoproteins; the relationship between these events is not clear. Additionally, although CETP and its regulator, lipid transfer inhibitor protein (LTIP), bind to lipoproteins, it is not known how the charge density of lipoprotein protein and lipid domains influences these factors. Here, the electronegativity of the protein (by acetylation) and surface lipid (oleate addition) domains of LDL were modified. LDL-only lipid transfer assays measured changes in CETP and LTIP activities. CETP activity was stimulated by <10µM oleate but completely suppressed by >20µM. The same electronegative potential induced by acetylation mildly stimulated CETP. Modification-induced enhanced binding of CETP did not correlate with CETP activity. LTIP activity was completely blocked by ~10µM oleate but only mildly suppressed by acetylation. LTIP binding to LDL was not decreased by oleate. Thus, the negative charge of LDL surface lipids, but not protein, is an important regulator of CETP and LTIP activity. Altered binding could not explain changes in CETP activity, suggesting that the extent of CETP binding is not normally rate-limiting to its activity. Physiologic and pathophysiologic conditions that modify the negative charge of lipoprotein surface lipids will suppress LTIP activity first, followed by CETP.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Alcohol AlcoholHome page
M. J. LIINAMAA, M. L. HANNUKSELA, M. E. RAMET, and M. J. SAVOLAINEN
DEFECTIVE GLYCOSYLATION OF CHOLESTERYL ESTER TRANSFER PROTEIN IN PLASMA FROM ALCOHOL ABUSERS
Alcohol Alcohol., January 1, 2006; 41(1): 18 - 23.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 All ASBMB Journals   Journal of Biological Chemistry 
 Molecular and Cellular Proteomics   ASBMB Today 
Copyright © 2003 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.