We recently cloned monoclonal IgM autoantibodies which bind to epitopes of oxidized low-density lipoprotein (OxLDL) from apoE-deficient mice (EO– autoantibodies). We now demonstrate that those EO– autoantibodies that were originally selected for binding to copper-oxidized low-density lipoproteins (CuOx-LDL), also bound both to the oxidized protein and to the oxidized lipid moieties of CuOx-LDL. The same EO– autoantibodies showed specific binding to products of oxidized 1-palmitoyl-2-arachidonoyl-phosphatidylcholine (OxPAPC) and to the specific oxidized phospholipid, 1-palmitoyl-2-(5-oxovaleroyl)-phosphatidyl-choline (POVPC), whereas oxidation of fatty acids (linoleic or arachidonic acid) or cholesteryl esters (cholesteryl-oleate or cholesteryl-linoleate) did not yield any binding activity. Those EO– autoantibodies that bound to oxidized phospholipids (e.g., EO6) inhibited the binding and degradation of CuOx-LDL by mouse peritoneal macrophages up to 91%, whereas other IgM EO– autoantibodies, selected for binding to malondialdehyde (MDA)-LDL, had no influence on binding of either CuOx-LDL or MDA-LDL by macrophages. F(ab′)2 fragments of EO6 were equally effective as the intact EO6 in preventing the binding of CuOx-LDL by macrophages. The molar ratios of IgM to LDL needed to maximally inhibit the binding varied from ∼8 to 25 with different CuOx-LDL preparations. Finally, a POVPC–bovine serum albumin (BSA) adduct also inhibited CuOx-LDL uptake by macrophages. These data suggest that oxidized phospholipid epitopes, present either as lipids or as lipid-protein adducts, represent one class of ligands involved in the recognition of OxLDL by macrophages, and that apoE-deficient mice have IgM autoantibodies that can bind to these neoepitopes and inhibit OxLDL uptake.
Sohvi Hörkkö, David A. Bird, Elizabeth Miller, Hiroyuki Itabe, Norbert Leitinger, Ganesamoorthy Subbanagounder, Judith A. Berliner, Peter Friedman, Edward A. Dennis, Linda K. Curtiss, Wulf Palinski, Joseph L. Witztum
Usage data is cumulative from January 2019 through January 2020.
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.