Author: Mx

I have read a review article on the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) of galectins written by the groups of CEBICEM, Facultad de Medicina y Ciencia, Universidad San Sebastián, Santiago, Chile, and others. The following is the typical phrases extracted from this review.
https://biolres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40659-024-00490-5

In gastric cancer, increased levels of Gal-1 have been associated with lower overall and disease-free survival, as well as with an increased incidence of lymph node metastasis in patients. Gastric cancer cell lines produce Gal-1, which promotes EMT and increases proliferation, invasion and metastatic potential of these cells. In ovarian cancer, serum samples show that Gal-1 levels are increased and correlate with a higher histological grade and lymph node metastasis. In ovarian cancer cell lines, Gal-1 overexpression promotes EMT and increases cell migration and invasion through the activation of the MAPK-JNK/p38 signaling pathway, while silencing of Gal-1 has opposite effects. High levels of Gal-1 are detected in stromal cells from gastric cancer and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumors in correlation with an EMT phenotype of carcinoma cells. Gal-1-overexpression in pancreatic stellate cells (PSC) induces EMT in co-cultured pancreatic carcinoma cells, enhancing their proliferation and invasion through the NF-κB pathway. Downregulation of Gal-3 expression reduces tumor growth in xenograft colon cancer models whereas its overexpression enhances the metastatic potential of cancer cells. In breast, colon, and prostate cancer cell lines exogenously added Gal-3 promotes EMT by its interaction with Trop-2, a highly-glycosylated membrane protein involved in cancer progression. Gal-4 has been reported in human prostate cancer tissues with expression levels correlating with metastasis and poor patient survival. Gal-8 is a widely expressed galectin in human tissues and carcinomas and has been associated with an unfavorable prognosis in various types of cancer. Gal-8 contributes to cancer progression and metastasis by regulating the production of immunoregulatory cytokines, thereby facilitating the recruitment of cancer cells to metastatic sites.

In other words, different types of galectins are involved in cancer in various places, but I think the issue is the degree of the contribution of galectin involvement. Glycans and lectins basically play regulatory roles except for innate immunity and congenital disorder of glycosylation (CDG).

Therefore, when trying to cure disease from a view point of glycans and lectins, I think it is necessary to narrow down the disease to those in which these are involved with higher contributions.
What do you think? ?

A group from Department of Pathology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, USA etc. has reported about cganges in glycosylation of melanoma.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.08.584072v1.full.pdf

It has shown using lectin microarrays that α1,2 fucose decreased in primary melanoma compared to nevi.
Interestingly, core fucose was high in nevi and lower in primary melanoma but then regained in metastatic melanoma.
It was also observed that 2,3 syalylation increased significantly in both primary and metastatic melanoma compared to nevi.

A group from Department of Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Japan, etc. has reported about changes in glycosylation in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma mediated by KRAS gene mutations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10963106/

It was shown that Fucosilation and mannosylation were upregurated in pancreatin ductal adenocarcinoma with KRAS gene mutations.
The lectins enriched in KRAS mutants included fucose-binding lectins (AAL, rAAL, AOL, rAOL, rRSIIL, and UEAI) and mannose-binding lectins (rRSL, rBC2LCA, rPAIIL, and NPA).

Glycans are said to be the face of cells, and the glycosylation on the cell surface changes depending on the tissue and desease state.
As a result, the glycosylation of exosomes released from cells drags the glycosylation of the cell surface, but for some reason, expression of sialic acid tends to be very strong.
For example, there is a paper written by Shimoda and Akiyoshi at. al., Kyoto University (see below).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6687741/
Why is this?
There is a paper that says it may be aimed at masking the immune system (in Japanese), but is that true?
for example,
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/dds/38/4/38_270/_pdf
In contrast, the authors cited above suggest that it is involved in the uptake of exosomes via Siglecs on the cell surface.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006291X17314845?via%3Dihub

（cited from the above listed paper）

A group from State Key Laboratory of Efficient Utilization of Arid and Semi-arid Arable Land in Northern China, Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China, etc. has reported about how to induce “cry for help” response to assemble disease suppressing and growth promoting rhizomicrobiome.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46254-3

The well-studied model pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato (Pst) DC3000 and its nonpathogenic derivatives (D36E, D36EFLC and D36EHPM) were used in this experiment using Arabidopsis as a model plant.

Treatment with either DC3000 or the derivatives increased the relative contents of long chain organic acids (LCOAs) and amino acids in root exudates. The bacterial phyla Proteobacteria (32.1%–38.3%) and Actinobacteria (15.4%–20.7%) were the most abundant groups in the rhizosphere, and the genus Devosia (belonging to phylum Proteobacteria) was enriched in the D36E and D36EFLC treatments. Interestingly, the abundance of genus Devosia was negatively correlated with L-malic acid and myristic acid in root exudates but positively correlated with 4-hydroxypyridine.

Finally, it was shown that the metabolites of D36E and D36EFLC alone are sufficient to induce a “cry for help” response. So, this study demonstrates the ability of nonpathogenic strains and their MAMPs to act as elicitors to induce the formation of a disease-suppressive soil legacy, which can potentially support agricultural applications.

Department of Chemical Science, University of Naples Federico II Via Cinthia 4, Naples, Italy, etc. has reported about molecular recognition of LPS by DC-SIGN.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10828809/

Lipopolysaccharides (LPS) are peculiar glycolipids which represent the major components of the external leaflet of the gram-negative bacteria outer membrane. They　consist of three structurally and genetically distinct domains: the lipid A, integrated in the outer membrane; the core oligosaccharide (OS), in turn composed of inner and outer core regions; and the distal O-specific polysaccharide (O-PS) chain, that extends outwards the bacterial surface

Structurally speaking, it is a dodecasaccharide composed of two residues of galactose and three glucose units in the outer core region and three L-glycero-D-manno-heptoses and two 3-deoxy-D-manno-oct-2-ulosonic acids (Kdo), in the inner core portion; the two glucosamine residues at reducing end belong to the lipid A moiety.

One of the main representatives of transmembrane C-type lectins is DC-SIGN also known as CD209. This lectin is found on macrophages, monocytes, and is mainly expressed by dendritic cells which act as potent phagocytic cells, and it is know that DC-SIGN belongs to the mannose receptor family. On the other hand, it has been shown that the DC-SIGN induced phagocytosis of E. coli occurs in the absence of O-antigen polysaccharides, and in the presence of a complete core OS.

In this study, it was found that DC-SIGN binds to the outer core pentasaccharide (composed of two residues of galactose and three glucose units), which acts as a crosslinker between two different tetrameric units of DC-SIGN.