CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 468

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lipoprotein lipase enhances the binding of chylomicrons to low density lipoprotein receptor-related protein.

Beisiegel, U, Weber, W, Bengtsson-Olivecrona, G·1991·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.88.19.8342
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Chylomicron catabolism is known to be initiated by the enzyme lipoprotein lipase (triacylglycero-protein acylhydrolase, EC 3.1.1.34). Chylomicron remnants, produced by lipolysis, are rapidly taken up by the liver via an apolipoprotein E (apoE)-mediated, receptor-dependent process. The low density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor-related protein (LRP) has been suggested as the potential apoE receptor. We have analyzed the binding of human chylomicrons to HepG2 cells in the absence and presence of lipoprotein lipase. Bovine and human lipoprotein lipases were able to increase the specific binding of the chylomicrons by up to 30-fold. This effect was not dependent on lipolysis but appeared to be due to the lipase protein itself. It was not found when a structurally unrelated, bacterial lipase was used. Using beta-migrating very low density lipoproteins (beta-VLDLs), known as a good ligand for LRP, binding studies were performed on LDL receptor-negative human fibroblasts. The binding was increased 40-fold by addition of lipoprotein lipase. Crosslinking experiments on cells with 125I-labeled apoE liposomes or lipoprotein lipase showed that both proteins were able to bind to LRP on the cell surface. The binding of apoE to LRP was highly increased by the addition of lipase. We conclude that lipoprotein lipase strongly enhances the binding of apoE-containing lipoproteins to LRP and therefore might play an important role in chylomicron catabolism not only because of its lipolytic activity but also because of its structural properties.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.88.19.8342

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [2]Carrella, M. & Cooper, A. D. (1979) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 76, 338-342.
  2. [19]Kowal, R. C., Herz, J., Goldstein, J. L., Esser, V. & Brown, M. S. (1989) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86, 5810–5814.
  3. [20]Lund, H., Takahashi, K., Hamilton, R. L. & Havel, R. J. (1989) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86, 9318–9322.
  4. [31]Kovanen, P. T., Brown, M. S., Basu, S. K., Bilheimer, D. W. & Goldstein, J. L. (1981) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78, 1396–1400.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Beisiegel, U., Weber, W., & Bengtsson-Olivecrona, G.
Affiliations
Medizinische Kernklinik und Poliklinik, Universitätskrankenhaus Eppendorf, Hamburg, Federal Republic of Germany.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
1991-10
Volume
88
Issue
19
Pages
8342-8346
ISSN
  • 0027-8424
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.88.19.8342
Cited by
468
References
2
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