Cancer Research AACR Membership  Sign up for Cancer Research eTOC's
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online

[Cancer Research 36, 2911-2914, August 1, 1976]
© 1976 American Association for Cancer Research

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Birckbichler, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Patterson, M. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Birckbichler, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Patterson, M. K., Jr.

Differential Transglutaminase Distribution in Normal Rat Liver and Rat Hepatoma

Paul J. Birckbichler, Gerald R. Orr and Manford K. Patterson, Jr.

Biomedical Division, The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc., Ardmore, Oklahoma 73401

Distribution of transglutaminase activity was determined in normal rat liver, a 3'-methyl-4-dimethylaminoazobenzene-induced primary hepatoma, and the Novikoff hepatoma. Over 90% of the total enzyme activity was found in the 105,000 x g supernatant of normal liver, whereas only 30% was found in this fraction of the hepatomas, the remainder being found in the particulate fraction. This distribution pattern did not correlate with protein distribution nor did it change during cellular proliferation, since regenerating liver and embryonic tissue had the same pattern as normal liver. Cell protein was a suitable acceptor substrate for the enzyme. Kinetic analyses showed that liver and hepatoma enzymes had a similar Km and Vmax for putrescine incorporation into cell protein. Hepatoma particulate enzyme was more stable than either liver or hepatoma supernatant enzyme. The enzyme may also act as the acceptor molecule.

Received 2/ 9/76. Accepted 5/ 7/76.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
Copyright © 1976 by the American Association for Cancer Research.