protein standards

Iain Wilson WILSON at
Fri May 5 04:22:22 EST 1995

> Date:          4 May 1995 13:33:44 GMT
> From:          srps at (Steven Pirie-Shepherd)
> Reply-to:      srps at (Steven Pirie-Shepherd)
> To:            "bionet.glycosci mail newsgroup" <bionet-news at>
> Subject:       Re: protein standards

> Aida Cancel (axc19 at wrote:
> : If you would have to pick two 
> : proteins, a glycosylated control and a non-glycosylated control, which
> : ones would you think I should use? 
> : Your help will be appreciated,
> Glycosylated control: Fetuin from Gibco BRL or Boehringer Mannheim.
> Non-glycosylate control: some cheap E coli or prokaryote protein or 
> recombinant protein would work fine. Bacteria don't have glyco machinary.

This is not necessarily true. Some bacteria do have glycosylated 
proteins, although E. coli is not apparently one of them.

For instance:

Evidence for the covalent linkage of carbohydrate polymers to a 
glycoprotein from Streptococcus sanguis
Erickson, PR, and Herzberg, MC (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268:23780-23783

> What about some old Restriction enzyme lying around the lab?

Thus restriction enzymes from unusual sources may be glycosylated - 
one cannot say.

As for the other contributions to this thread - i.e. re: BSA - I 
believe that non-enzymatic glycosylation of BSA is possible with 
diabetic patients. But I have no refs. on that. And, of course, using 
cytoplasmic or nuclear proteins is no guarantee of a 
non-glycosylated status, due to the possible presence of O-linked 

One thought - isn't mature ConA non-glycosylated? 

Iain Wilson                        Institut fuer Chemie           
Tel: 43-1-47654-6065               Universitaet fuer Bodenkultur   
Fax: 43-1-310-5176                 Gregor-Mendel-Strasse 33
E-mail: wilson at     A-1180, WIEN, Austria

More information about the Glycosci mailing list