English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Comparison of two cell-adhesion molecules, uvomorulin and cell-CAM 105

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons284713

Vestweber,  D       
Kemler Group, Friedrich Miescher Laboratory, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons284716

Gossler,  A
Kemler Group, Friedrich Miescher Laboratory, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons191147

Kemler,  R
Kemler Group, Friedrich Miescher Laboratory, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Vestweber, D., Ocklind, C., Gossler, A., Odin, P., Obrink, B., & Kemler, R. (1985). Comparison of two cell-adhesion molecules, uvomorulin and cell-CAM 105. Experimental Cell Research, 157(2), 451-461. doi:10.1016/0014-4827(85)90130-2.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-000C-0580-D
Abstract
Two cell adhesion molecules, cell-CAM 105 and uvomorulin (UM), were compared by analysing their antigenic structures, their activity in cell aggregation assays and their expression in various tissues. Cell-CAM 105 is a membrane glycoprotein which mediates the intercellular adhesion of reaggregating rat hepatocytes, and UM was first described to be involved in the compaction of preimplantation mouse embryos and embryonal carcinoma cells. UM is not only expressed during embryonic development but also in various adult tissues including liver, epithelia of lung, gut, kidney and uterus. A similar distribution for UM was found in rat tissues on cell types where cell-CAM 105 is known to be present. Our studies show that (i) cell-CAM 105 and UM are distinct and different proteins; (ii) uvomorulin is involved in the compaction of rat preimplantation embryos but Fab anti-UM has no effect on reaggregating rat hepatocytes, where Fab anti-cell CAM is effective; (iii) distribution studies show that UM is expressed on a broader range of epithelial cells while cell-CAM 105 is more restricted to hepatocytes and simple epithelia. In cases where both cell adhesion molecules are expressed on the same cell types they can be localized to different parts of the cell surface.