Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T15:21:18.404Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The acid phosphatases of bovine leucocytes, plasma and the milk of healthy and mastitic cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

A. T. Andrews
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
E. Alichanidis
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT

Summary

Some of the acid phosphatase isozymes of bovine leucocytes and plasma have been separated and partly characterized. About 80% of the phosphatase activity of leucocytes at pH 4·9 was particle-bound and about 8% was extractable with Amberlite CG-50 ion exchange resin. This extractable enzyme existed as a single electrophoretic component with a mol. wt of about 42000 and with optimum activity at pH 5·8. Km for p-nitrophenyl phosphate was 1·6 mM at pH 5·8 and 0·4 mM at pH 4·9. At pH 5·8 orthophosphate (K1 = 1·5 mM) and pyrophosphate (Ki = 4·1 mM) were competitive inhibitors. The enzyme was also strongly inhibited by F, Al3+, IO4 and S2032−. The enzyme which was not extractable with Amberlite was very heterogeneous with respect to molecular weight. At the pH optimum (4·9), Km for p-nitrophenyl phosphate was 0·4 mM and orthophosphate (K1 = 2·3 mM) and pyrophosphate (K1 = 2·1 mM) were competitive inhibitors. Other inhibitors included F, Al3+, Hg2+, IO4 and tartrate. The enzyme extracted from plasma by Amberlite CG-50 treatment had properties similar to that extracted from leucocytes. Normal bovine milk contained a single acid phosphatase, but milk from cows with mastitis showed 3 electrophoretic isozyme bands, one being the same as in normal milk; the 2 additional bands were of leucocyte origin.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, M., Brooker, B. E., Andrews, A. T. & Alichanidis, E. (1974). Journal of Dairy Science 57, 1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, M., Brooker, B. E., Andrews, A. T. & Alichanidis, E. (1975). Journal of Dairy Research 42, 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, A. T. (1974). Journal of Dairy Research 41, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, A. T. & Pallavicini, C. (1973). Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 321, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, P. (1970). Methods of Biochemical Analysis 18, 1.Google Scholar
Axline, S. G. & Cohn, Z. A. (1970). Journal of Experimental Medicine 131, 1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bingham, E. W., Jasewicz, L. & Zittle, C. A. (1961). Journal of Dairy Science 44, 1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bingham, E. W. & Zittle, C. A. (1963). Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 101, 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dow, D. & Whitaker, R. H. (1970). British Medical Journal iv, 470.Google Scholar
Fenton, M. R. & Richardson, K. E. (1967). Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 120, 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. F., Takakura, K. & Rosenthal, R. L. (1966). Nature 211, 41.Google Scholar
Li, C. Y., Yam, L. T. & Lam, K. W. (1970). Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry 18, 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, M., Hamilton, H. B. & Stotz, E. (1957). Journal of Biological Chemistry 228, 767.Google Scholar
Mullen, J. E. C. (1950). Journal of Dairy Research 17, 288.Google Scholar
Reisfeld, R. A., Lewis, U. J. & Williams, D. E. (1962). Nature 195, 281.Google Scholar
Rozenszajn, L., Epstein, Y., Shoham, D. & Arber, I. (1968). Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 72, 786.Google Scholar
Wright, D. G. & Malawista, S. E. (1972). Journal of Cell Biology 53, 788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar