Sequencing and molecular characterization of variations in the glycine N–acyltransferase gene

Abstract

Humans are continuously challenged by harmful endogenous and xenobiotic substances. Detoxification is the ability to neutralise and remove these substances from the body. Glycine N-acyltransferase, EC 2.3.1.13 (GLYAT) is a key enzyme in detoxification. GLYAT catalyses an amino acid (glycine) conjugation reaction in phase II of detoxification. It is expected that, similar to what has been observed in the Cytochrome P450 enzymes, variations within the GLYAT gene may lead to altered enzyme activity that may affect the efficacy of detoxification. The aim of this study was to identify genetic variations within the GLYAT gene of a cohort of individuals whose GLYAT activity has been biochemically characterized. Biochemical profiles of phase I and II detoxification of a number of individuals was screened to select those with possible aberrant GLYAT activity. Eighteen selected individuals agreed to participate in the study. The 23.21 kb GLYAT gene of the participants was amplified in four fragments and sent for pyrosequencing (Roche GS FLX titanium) at Inqaba Biotec. The results were analysed with the Lasergene software package from DNAStar (Madison, Wisconsin, USA). A total of 94 variations were identified from the Next Generation Sequencing data. Of these three found in the exons were known variations and four variations located in the exons were novel. A total of 62 known and 25 novel variations were identified in the introns of the GLYAT gene. Sanger sequencing verified 70.29% (68 in total) of the variation, which included 12 novel variations, of which one is located in exon six. Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) experiments were conducted and the data analysed using CopyCaller software to identify copy number variations within the cohort. It was found that participant 17 may have multiple copies of parts of the 3-terminal end of the gene (exons five and six), which might have an effect on GLYAT activity. Variations could possibly affect GLYAT activity, but the data was inconclusive and must be confirmed. Some of the variations could possibly affect GLYAT activity, but no correlation could be made between the variations identified during this study and the cohort’s detoxification ability. Further studies needs to be conducted to establish the effect of the variations in combination with one another on GLYAT activity. If some of these variations affect GLYAT activity such data might shed some light on variations observed between the glycine conjugation ability of individuals. Such information could eventually be of value in treatment of inborn errors of metabolism.