By expressing the gC1q domain polypeptides of CTRP5, Hayward et al.,
18 showed that gC1q peptides can form multimers. We expressed the complete CTRP5 protein with a C-terminal V5 tag, which is naturally processed and secreted (
Fig. 8A , lanes 1–3). The Western blot analysis showed the presence of monomeric protein in the cell extracts (
Fig. 8A , lanes 1, 2). In addition, we observed a significant presence of CTRP5 protein that did not enter into the gel but remained at the top of the lane (
Fig. 8A , lanes 1, 2). To investigate further the higher-molecular-weight species of the CTRP5 protein in the cell, in the media, and when it is mutated, the protein extracts were subjected to two types of treatments: boiling with only SDS, and boiling with SDS and reducing agents (BME and DTT). Only monomeric (29 kDa) CTRP5 bands were detected under reduced conditions in the membrane fraction (
Fig. 8B , lane 1), in the hydrophilic fraction (
Fig. 8B , lane 3), in the media (
Fig. 8B , lane 5), and also in the fraction containing mutant CTRP5 (
Fig. 8B , lane 7). With SDS alone, an additional band of 50 kDa was observed in the wild-type protein fractions that may represent a dimeric form of the CTRP5 protein that is partially resistant to detergent but not to the reducing agents (
Fig. 8B , lanes 2, 4, 6; vertical arrows). The membrane and hydrophilic fractions of wild type CTRP5 protein seemed to form stronger higher order multimers as evidenced from the lanes having significant amount of proteins that could not enter into the gel (
Fig. 8B , lanes 1–4; horizontal arrow). Of note, the higher-molecular-weight complex of CTRP5 was not observed in the culture medium, suggesting that the secretory form of CTRP5 may exist as a monomer or dimer (
Fig. 8B , lanes 5, 6; arrowheads). Monomeric mutant (S163R) CTRP5 was observed under reducing conditions. In contrast to the wild type protein, neither monomer nor dimer was detected under nonreducing conditions, and the mutant CTRP5 protein remained at the top of the gel. These observations suggest that the wild-type CTRP5 may exist in different higher order hetero- or homo-oligomeric complexes or posttranslationally modified forms and the nature of the mutant CTRP5 differs from the wild-type protein. Therefore, when mutant protein interacts with wild-type protein in the heterozygous condition, it may alter the properties of the wild-type protein and that may explain the dominant negative phenotype of L-ORD. A detailed further investigation of the nature and function of these different forms of CTRP5 and their interaction may provide useful information.