Heparan Sulfate - HS Structure and Differences From Heparin

HS Structure and Differences From Heparin

Heparan sulfate is a member of the glycosaminoglycan family of carbohydrates and is very closely related in structure to heparin. Both consist of a variably sulfated repeating disaccharide unit. The main disaccharide units that occur in heparan sulfate and heparin are shown below.

The most common disaccharide unit within heparan sulfate is composed of a glucuronic acid (GlcA) linked to N-acetylglucosamine (GlcNAc) typically making up around 50% of the total disaccharide units. Compare this to heparin where IdoA(2S)-GlcNS(6S) makes up 85% of heparins from beef lung and about 75% of those from porcine intestinal mucosa. Problems arise when defining hybrid GAGs that contain both 'heparin-like' and 'HS-like' structures. It has been suggested that a GAG should qualify as heparin only if its content of N-sulfate groups largely exceeds that of N-acetyl groups and the concentration of O-sulfate groups exceeds those of N-sulfate.

Not shown below are the rare disaccharides containing a 3-O-sulfated glucosamine (GlcNS(3S,6S) or a free amine group (GlcNH3+). Under physiological conditions the ester and amide sulfate groups are deprotonated and attract positively charged counterions to form a salt. It is in this form that HS is thought to exist at the cell surface.

  • GlcA-GlcNAc
  • GlcA-GlcNS
  • IdoA-GlcNS
  • IdoA(2S)-GlcNS
  • IdoA-GlcNS(6S)
  • IdoA(2S)-GlcNS(6S)

Read more about this topic:  Heparan Sulfate

Famous quotes containing the words structure and/or differences:

    Why does philosophy use concepts and why does faith use symbols if both try to express the same ultimate? The answer, of course, is that the relation to the ultimate is not the same in each case. The philosophical relation is in principle a detached description of the basic structure in which the ultimate manifests itself. The relation of faith is in principle an involved expression of concern about the meaning of the ultimate for the faithful.
    Paul Tillich (1886–1965)

    Quintilian [educational writer in Rome about A.D. 100] hoped that teachers would be sensitive to individual differences of temperament and ability. . . . Beating, he thought, was usually unnecessary. A teacher who had made the effort to understand his pupil’s individual needs and character could probably dispense with it: “I will content myself with saying that children are helpless and easily victimized, and that therefore no one should be given unlimited power over them.”
    C. John Sommerville (20th century)