Stability of the Neurotensin Receptor NTS1 Free in Detergent Solution and Immobilized to Affinity Resin

Purification of recombinant membrane receptors is commonly achieved by use of an affinity tag followed by an additional chromatography step if required. This second step may exploit specific receptor properties such as ligand binding. However, the effects of multiple purification steps on protein yield and integrity are often poorly documented. We have previously reported a robust two-step purification procedure for the recombinant rat neurotensin receptor NTS1 to give milligram quantities of functional receptor protein. First, histidine-tagged receptors are enriched by immobilized metal affinity chromatography using Ni-NTA resin. Second, remaining contaminants in the Ni-NTA column eluate are removed by use of a subsequent neurotensin column yielding pure NTS1. Whilst the neurotensin column eluate contained functional receptor protein, we observed in the neurotensin column flow-through misfolded NTS1.To investigate the origin of the misfolded receptors, we estimated the amount of functional and misfolded NTS1 at each purification step by radio-ligand binding, densitometry of Coomassie stained SDS-gels, and protein content determination. First, we observed that correctly folded NTS1 suffers damage by exposure to detergent and various buffer compositions as seen by the loss of [(3)H]neurotensin binding over time. Second, exposure to the neurotensin affinity resin generated additional misfolded receptor protein.Our data point towards two ways by which misfolded NTS1 may be generated: Damage by exposure to buffer components and by close contact of the receptor to the neurotensin affinity resin. Because NTS1 in detergent solution is stabilized by neurotensin, we speculate that the occurrence of aggregated receptor after contact with the neurotensin resin is the consequence of perturbations in the detergent belt surrounding the NTS1 transmembrane core. Both effects reduce the yield of functional receptor protein

Inhibition, flexibility, working memory and planning in autism spectrum disorders with and without comorbid ADHD-symptoms

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent studies have not paid a great deal of attention to comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in autistic children even though it is well known that almost half of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) suffer from hyperactivity, inattention and impulsivity. The goal of this study was to evaluate and compare executive functioning (EF) profiles in children with ADHD and in children with ASD with and without comorbid ADHD.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Children aged 6 to 18 years old with ADHD (n = 20) or ASD (High-Functioning autism or Asperger syndrome) with (n = 20) and without (n = 20) comorbid ADHD and a typically developing group (n = 20) were compared on a battery of EF tasks comprising inhibition, flexibility, working memory and planning tasks. A MANOVA, effect sizes as well as correlations between ADHD-symptomatology and EF performance were calculated. Age- and IQ-corrected z scores were used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was a significant effect for the factor group (F = 1.55; dF = 42; p = .02). Post-hoc analysis revealed significant differences between the ADHD and the TD group on the inhibition task for false alarms (p = .01) and between the ADHD group, the ASD+ group (p = .03), the ASD- group (p = .02) and the TD group (p = .01) for omissions. Effect sizes showed clear deficits of ADHD children in inhibition and working memory tasks. Participants with ASD were impaired in planning and flexibility abilities. The ASD+ group showed compared to the ASD- group more problems in inhibitory performance but not in the working memory task.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our findings replicate previous results reporting impairment of ADHD children in inhibition and working memory tasks and of ASD children in planning and flexibility abilities. The ASD + group showed similarities to the ADHD group with regard to inhibitory but not to working memory deficits. Nevertheless the heterogeneity of these and previous results shows that EF assessment is not useful for differential diagnosis between ADHD and ASD. It might be useful for evaluating strengths and weaknesses in individual children.</p