N. Fujimoto et al., INTERACTION BETWEEN TISSUE INHIBITOR OF METALLOPROTEINASES-2 AND PROGELATINASE-A - IMMUNOREACTIVITY ANALYSES, Biochemical journal, 313, 1996, pp. 827-833
By immunoreactivity analysis using monoclonal antibodies, we showed th
at the C-terminal domain [R(415-631); R is residue] of progelatinase A
[pro-matrix metalloproteinase-2 (proMMP-2); EC 3.4.24.24] affected th
e immunoreactivity of a one-step sandwich enzyme immunoassay (sandwich
EIA) for tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2 (TIMP-2) in exactly
the same way as does proMMP-2 [Fujimoto, Zhang, Iwata, Shinya, Okada
and Hayakawa (1993) Clin. Chim. Acta 220, 31-45], confirming that the
C-terminal domain ('tail' portion) of TIMP-2 participates in the bindi
ng with the C-terminal domain of proMMP-2. We also demonstrated that n
ot only the C-terminal domain but also the N-terminal domain (R(1-417)
) of proMMP-2 bound to TIMP-2 in a 1:1 molar ratio. The binding of eac
h individual domain to TIMP-2, however, was weak enough that either do
main could be fully replaced by proMMP-2 itself, suggesting that eithe
r terminal domain binds to TIMP-2 through the same binding sites as do
es proMMP-2, and also that the high-order structure of proMMP-2 allows
a more stable binding to TIMP-2. We further confirmed that TIMP-2 com
plexed with the N-terminal domain of proMMP-2 had fully inhibitory act
ivity against the collagenolytic activity of MMP-1. We also demonstrat
ed that either the interstitial collagenase-TIMP-2 complex or the gela
tinase B (MMP-9)-TIMP-2 complex was able to form a ternary complex wit
h proMMP-2 in a 1:1 molar ratio, clearly indicating that there are two
distinct binding sites, one specific for proMMP-2 and the other for a
ctive MMPs, on the TIMP-2 molecule. The C-terminal domain was able to
bind to the MMP-9-TIMP-2 complex, but the binding seemed to be less st
able than the binding with TIMP-2 alone. Even in the presence of a 10-
fold molar excess of the N-terminal domain, ternary complex formation
was not observed between the N-terminal domain and the MMP-9-TIMP-2 co
mplex. These clear differences might be ascribed to some significant c
onformational change(s) evoked in the TIMP-2 molecule, or hindrance of
a part of the N-terminal domain binding site of TIMP-2 by complex for
mation with MMP-9.