Cited by 138

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Cell surface receptor binding of phospholipid . protein complexes containing different ratios of receptor-active and -inactive E apoprotein.

Pitas, R.E., Innerarity, T.L., Mahley, R.W.·1980·Journal of Biological Chemistry

Abstract

Previous data have shown that apo-E HDL, a lipoprotein containing only the E apoprotein, bind to fibroblast cell surface receptors with a higher affinity than do the apo-€3-containing low density lipoproteins (LDL).The enhanced affinity of apo-E NDL, results from multiple receptor binding (four receptors per HDL, particle).To study the molecular interaction of the E apoprotein with the lipoprotein receptors, apo-E was formed in a complex with dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine vesicles, and the equilibrium dissociation constants (&) for the binding of these complexes with the receptor were determined.In the dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine apoprotein complexes, the ratio of active apo-E, which was capable of receptor binding, to inactive apo-E, which was made incapable of receptor binding by acetoacetylation of the lysine residues, was varied.No differences were noted in the physicochemical properties of the complexes formed with either the active apo-E, inactive apo-E, or different ratios of the two.The complexes had a molecular weight of 760,000 and contained approximately 4 apo-E molecules/disk.Complexes which contained 4 active apo-E molecules bound with a & of 0.10 X IO-' M, a binding affinity similar to that of apo-E HDL, ( K d = 0.12 X lo-' M).Reduction in the number of active apo-E molecules per complex resulted in a reduction in binding affinity and an increase in the number of disks bound per cell.Complexes with 1 active and 3 inactive apo-E molecules/disk bound with an a…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0021-9258(19)70808-4

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Goldstein, 1977, Annu. Rev. Biochem., 46, 897, 10.1146/annurev.bi.46.070177.004341 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Mahley, 1977, Am. J. Pathol., 87, 205
  3. Innerarity, 1978, Biochemistry, 17, 1440, 10.1021/bi00601a013 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Pitas, 1979, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 76, 2311, 10.1073/pnas.76.5.2311 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bersot, 1976, J. Biol. Chem., 251, 2395, 10.1016/S0021-9258(17)33600-1 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Mahley, 1977, J. Biol. Chem., 252, 7279, 10.1016/S0021-9258(19)66966-8 · DOI
  7. Weisgraber, 1978, J. Biol. Chem., 253, 9053, 10.1016/S0021-9258(17)34284-9 · DOI
  8. Innerarity, 1979, J. Biol. Chem., 254, 4186, 10.1016/S0021-9258(18)50713-4 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Pownall, 1980, Biochemistry
  10. Bilheimer, 1972, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 260, 212, 10.1016/0005-2760(72)90034-3 · DOI
  11. Bolton, 1973, Biochem. J., 133, 529, 10.1042/bj1330529 · DOI
  12. Roth, 1977, Biochemistry, 16, 5030, 10.1021/bi00642a014 · DOI
  13. Lowry, 1951, J. Biol. Chem., 193, 265, 10.1016/S0021-9258(19)52451-6 · DOI
  14. Bartlet, 1959, J. Biol. Chem., 234, 466, 10.1016/S0021-9258(18)70226-3 · DOI
  15. Scatchard, 1949, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 51, 660, 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1949.tb27297.x · DOI
  16. Weisgraber, 1977, J. Biol. Chem., 253, 6281, 10.1016/S0021-9258(17)34612-4 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pitas, R. E., Innerarity, T. L., & Mahley, R. W.
Venue
Journal of Biological Chemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1980-06
Volume
255
Issue
11
Pages
5454-5460
ISSN
0021-9258
Cited by
138
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review