Cell Adhesion, the Backbone of the Synapse: ��Vertebrate�� and ��Invertebrate�� Perspectives

Synapses are asymmetric intercellular junctions that mediate neuronal communication. The number, type, and connectivity patterns of synapses determine the formation, maintenance, and function of neural circuitries. The complexity and specificity of synaptogenesis relies upon modulation of adhesive properties, which regulate contact initiation, synapse formation, maturation, and functional plasticity. Disruption of adhesion may result in structural and functional imbalance that may lead to neurodevelopmental diseases, such as autism, or neurodegeneration, such as Alzheimer''s disease. Therefore, understanding the roles of different adhesion protein families in synapse formation is crucial for unraveling the biology of neuronal circuit formation, as well as the pathogenesis of some brain disorders. The present review summarizes some of the knowledge that has been acquired in vertebrate and invertebrate genetic model organisms.Synapses are asymmetric, intercellular junctions that are the basic structural units of neuronal transmission. The correct development of synaptic specializations and the establishment of appropriate connectivity patterns are crucial for the assembly of functional neuronal circuits. Improper synapse formation and function may cause neurodevelopmental disorders, such as mental retardation (MsR) and autism spectrum disorders (ASD) (McAllister 2007; Sudhof 2008), and likely play a role in neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer''s disease (AD) (Haass and Selkoe 2007).At chemical synapses (reviewed in Sudhof 2004; Zhai and Bellen 2004; Waites et al. 2005; McAllister 2007; Jin and Garner 2008), the presynaptic compartment contains synaptic vesicles (SV), organized in functionally distinct subcellular pools. A subset of SVs docks to the presynaptic membrane around protein-dense release sites, named active zones (AZ). Upon the arrival of an action potential at the terminal, the docked and “primed” SVs fuse with the plasma membrane and release neurotransmitter molecules into the synaptic cleft. Depending on the type of synapse (i.e., excitatory vs. inhibitory synapses), neurotransmitters ultimately activate an appropriate set of postsynaptic receptors that are accurately apposed to the AZ.Synapse formation occurs in several steps (Fig. 1) (reviewed in Eaton and Davis 2003; Goda and Davis 2003; Waites et al. 2005; Garner et al. 2006; Gerrow and El-Husseini 2006; McAllister 2007). Spatiotemporal signals guide axons through heterogeneous cellular environments to contact appropriate postsynaptic targets. At their destination, axonal growth cones initiate synaptogenesis through adhesive interactions with target cells. In the mammalian central nervous system (CNS), immature postsynaptic dendritic spines initially protrude as thin, actin-rich filopodia on the surface of dendrites. Similarly, at the Drosophila neuromuscular junction (NMJ), myopodia develop from the muscles (Ritzenthaler et al. 2000). The stabilization of intercellular contacts and their elaboration into mature, functional synapses involves cytoskeletal arrangements and recruitment of pre- and postsynaptic components to contact sites in spines and boutons. Conversely, retraction of contacts results in synaptic elimination. Both stabilization and retraction sculpt a functional neuronal circuitry.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.(A–C) Different stages of synapse formation. (A) Target selection, (B) Synapse assembly, (C) Synapse maturation and stabilization. (D–F) The role of cell adhesion molecules in synapse formation is exemplified by the paradigm of N-cadherin and catenins in regulation of the morphology and strength of dendritic spine heads. (D) At an early stage the dendritic spines are elongated from motile structures “seeking” their synaptic partners. (E) The contacts between the presynaptic and postsynaptic compartments are stabilized by recruitment of additional cell adhesion molecules. Adhesional interactions activate downstream pathways that remodel the cytoskeleton and organize pre- and postsynaptic apparatuses. (F) Cell adhesion complexes, stabilized by increased synaptic activity, promote the expansion of the dendritic spine head and the maturation/ stabilization of the synapse. Retraction and expansion is dependent on synaptic plasticity.In addition to the plastic nature of synapse formation, the vast heterogeneity of synapses (in terms of target selection, morphology, and type of neurotransmitter released) greatly enhances the complexity of synaptogenesis (reviewed in Craig and Boudin 2001; Craig et al. 2006; Gerrow and El-Husseini 2006). The complexity and specificity of synaptogenesis relies upon the modulation of adhesion between the pre- and postsynaptic components (reviewed in Craig et al. 2006; Gerrow and El-Husseini 2006; Piechotta et al. 2006; Dalva et al. 2007; Shapiro et al. 2007; Yamada and Nelson 2007; Gottmann 2008). Cell adhesive interactions enable cell–cell recognition via extracellular domains and also mediate intracellular signaling cascades that affect synapse morphology and organize scaffolding complexes. Thus, cell adhesion molecules (CAMs) coordinate multiple synaptogenic steps.However, in vitro and in vivo studies of vertebrate CAMs are often at odds with each other. Indeed, there are no examples of mutants for synaptic CAMs that exhibit prominent defects in synapse formation. This apparent “resilience” of synapses is probably caused by functional redundancy or compensatory effects among different CAMs (Piechotta et al. 2006). Hence, studies using simpler organisms less riddled by redundancy, such as Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila, have aided in our understanding of the role that these molecules play in organizing synapses.In this survey, we discuss the roles of the best characterized CAM families of proteins involved in synaptogenesis. Our focus is to highlight the complex principles that govern the molecular basis of synapse formation and function from a comparative perspective. We will present results from cell culture studies as well as in vivo analyses in vertebrate systems and refer to invertebrate studies, mainly performed in Drosophila and C. elegans, when they have provided important insights into the role of particular CAM protein families. However, we do not discuss secreted factors, for which we refer the reader to numerous excellent reviews (as for example Washbourne et al. 2004; Salinas 2005; Piechotta et al. 2006; Shapiro et al. 2006; Dalva 2007; Yamada and Nelson 2007; Biederer and Stagi 2008; Salinas and Zou 2008).     

Investigations of �� Initiator Protein-mediated Interaction between Replication Origins �� and �� of the Plasmid R6K

A typical plasmid replicon of Escherichia coli, such as ori γ of R6K, contains tandem iterons (iterated initiator protein binding sites), an AT-rich region that melts upon initiator-iteron interaction, two binding sites for the bacterial initiator protein DnaA, and a binding site for the DNA-bending protein IHF. R6K also contains two structurally atypical origins called α and β that are located on either side of γ and contain a single and a half-iteron, respectively. Individually, these sites do not bind to initiator protein π but access it by DNA looping-mediated interaction with the seven π-bound γ iterons. The π protein exists in 2 interconvertible forms: inert dimers and active monomers. Initiator dimers generally function as negative regulators of replication by promoting iteron pairing (“handcuffing”) between pairs of replicons that turn off both origins. Contrary to this existing paradigm, here we show that both the dimeric and the monomeric π are necessary for ori α-driven plasmid maintenance. Furthermore, efficient looping interaction between α and γ or between 2 γ iterons in vitro also required both forms of π. Why does α-γ iteron pairing promote α activation rather than repression? We show that a weak, transitory α-γ interaction at the iteron pairs was essential for α-driven plasmid maintenance. Swapping the α iteron with one of γ without changing the original sequence context that caused enhanced looping in vitro caused a significant inhibition of α-mediated plasmid maintenance. Therefore, the affinity of α iteron for π-bound γ and not the sequence context determined whether the origin was activated or repressed.     

Molecular Basis of the Recognition of Nephronectin by Integrin ��8��1

Integrin α8β1 interacts with a variety of Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD)-containing ligands in the extracellular matrix. Here, we examined the binding activities of α8β1 integrin toward a panel of RGD-containing ligands. Integrin α8β1 bound specifically to nephronectin with an apparent dissociation constant of 0.28 ± 0.01 nm, but showed only marginal affinities for fibronectin and other RGD-containing ligands. The high-affinity binding to α8β1 integrin was fully reproduced with a recombinant nephronectin fragment derived from the RGD-containing central “linker” segment. A series of deletion mutants of the recombinant fragment identified the LFEIFEIER sequence on the C-terminal side of the RGD motif as an auxiliary site required for high-affinity binding to α8β1 integrin. Alanine scanning mutagenesis within the LFEIFEIER sequence defined the EIE sequence as a critical motif ensuring the high-affinity integrin-ligand interaction. Although a synthetic LFEIFEIER peptide failed to inhibit the binding of α8β1 integrin to nephronectin, a longer peptide containing both the RGD motif and the LFEIFEIER sequence was strongly inhibitory, and was ∼2,000-fold more potent than a peptide containing only the RGD motif. Furthermore, trans-complementation assays using recombinant fragments containing either the RGD motif or LFEIFEIER sequence revealed a clear synergism in the binding to α8β1 integrin. Taken together, these results indicate that the specific high-affinity binding of nephronectin to α8β1 integrin is achieved by bipartite interaction of the integrin with the RGD motif and LFEIFEIER sequence, with the latter serving as a synergy site that greatly potentiates the RGD-driven integrin-ligand interaction but has only marginal activity to secure the interaction by itself.Integrins are a family of adhesion receptors that interact with a variety of extracellular ligands, typically cell-adhesive proteins in the extracellular matrix (ECM).² They play mandatory roles in embryonic development and the maintenance of tissue architectures by providing essential links between cells and the ECM (1). Integrins are composed of two non-covalently associated subunits, termed α and β. In mammals, 18 α and 8 β subunits have been identified, and combinations of these subunits give rise to at least 24 distinct integrin heterodimers. Based on their ligand-binding specificities, ECM-binding integrins are classified into three groups, namely laminin-, collagen- and RGD-binding integrins (2, 3), of which the RGD-binding integrins have been most extensively investigated. The RGD-binding integrins include α5β1, α8β1, αIIbβ3, and αV-containing integrins, and have been shown to interact with a variety of ECM ligands, such as fibronectin and vitronectin, with distinct binding specificities.The α8 integrin subunit was originally identified in chick nerves (4). Integrin α8β1 is expressed in the metanephric mesenchyme and plays a crucial role in epithelial-mesenchymal interactions during the early stages of kidney morphogenesis. Disruption of the α8 gene in mice was found to be associated with severe defects in kidney morphogenesis (5) and stereocilia development (6). To date, α8β1 integrin has been shown to bind to fibronectin, vitronectin, osteopontin, latency-associated peptide of transforming growth factor-β1, tenascin-W, and nephronectin (also named POEM) (7–13), among which nephronectin is believed to be an α8β1 integrin ligand involved in kidney development (10).Nephronectin is one of the basement membrane proteins whose expression and localization patterns are restricted in a tissue-specific and developmentally regulated manner (10, 11). Nephronectin consists of five epidermal growth factor-like repeats, a linker segment containing the RGD cell-adhesive motif (designated RGD-linker) and a meprin-A5 protein-receptor protein-tyrosine phosphatase μ (MAM) domain (see Fig. 3A). Although the physiological functions of nephronectin remain only poorly understood, it is thought to play a role in epithelial-mesenchymal interactions through binding to α8β1 integrin, thereby transmitting signals from the epithelium to the mesenchyme across the basement membrane (10). Recently, mice deficient in nephronectin expression were produced by homologous recombination (14). These nephronectin-deficient mice frequently displayed kidney agenesis, a phenotype reminiscent of α8 integrin knock-out mice (14), despite the fact that other RGD-containing ligands, including fibronectin and osteopontin, were expressed in the embryonic kidneys (9, 15). The failure of the other RGD-containing ligands to compensate for the deficiency of nephronectin in the developing kidneys suggests that nephronectin is an indispensable α8β1 ligand that plays a mandatory role in epithelial-mesenchymal interactions during kidney development.Open in a separate windowFIGURE 3.Binding activities of α8β1 integrin to nephronectin and its fragments. A, schematic diagrams of full-length nephronectin (NN) and its fragments. RGD-linker and RGD-linker (GST), the central RGD-containing linker segments expressed in mammalian and bacterial expression systems, respectively; PRGDV, a short RGD-containing peptide modeled after nephronectin and expressed as a GST fusion protein (see Fig. 4A for the peptide sequence). The arrowheads indicate the positions of the RGD motif. B, purified recombinant proteins were analyzed by SDS-PAGE in 7–15% gradient (left and center panels) and 12% (right panels) gels, followed by Coomassie Brilliant Blue (CBB) staining, immunoblotting with an anti-FLAG mAb, or lectin blotting with PNA. The quantities of proteins loaded were: 0.5 μg (for Coomassie Brilliant Blue staining) and 0.1 μg (for blotting with anti-FLAG and PNA) in the left and center panels;1 μg in the right panel. C, recombinant proteins (10 nm) were coated on microtiter plates and assessed for their binding activities toward α8β1 integrin (10 nm) in the presence of 1 mm Mn²⁺. The backgrounds were subtracted as described in the legend to Fig. 2. The results represent the mean ± S.D. of triplicate determinations. D, titration curves of α8β1 integrin bound to full-length nephronectin (NN, closed squares), the RGD-linker segments expressed in 293F cells (RGD-linker, closed triangles) and E. coli (RGD-linker (GST), open triangles), the MAM domain (MAM, closed diamonds), and the PRGDV peptide expressed as a GST fusion protein in E. coli (PRGDV (GST), open circles). The assays were performed as described in the legend to Fig. 2B. The results represent the means of duplicate determinations.Although ligand recognition by RGD-binding integrins is primarily determined by the RGD motif in the ligands, it is the residues outside the RGD motif that define the binding specificities and affinities toward individual integrins (16, 17). For example, α5β1 integrin specifically binds to fibronectin among the many RGD-containing ligands, and requires not only the RGD motif in the 10th type III repeat but also the so-called “synergy site” within the preceding 9th type III repeat for fibronectin recognition (18). Recently, DiCara et al. (19) demonstrated that the high-affinity binding of αVβ6 integrin to its natural ligands, e.g. foot-and-mouth disease virus, requires the RGD motif immediately followed by a Leu-Xaa-Xaa-Leu/Ile sequence, which forms a helix to align the two conserved hydrophobic residues along the length of the helix. Given the presence of many naturally occurring RGD-containing ligands, it is conceivable that the specificities of the RGD-binding integrins are dictated by the sequences flanking the RGD motif or those in neighboring domains that come into close proximity with the RGD motif in the intact ligand proteins. However, the preferences of α8β1 integrin for RGD-containing ligands and how it secures its high-affinity binding toward its preferred ligands remain unknown.In the present study, we investigated the binding specificities of α8β1 integrin toward a panel of RGD-containing cell-adhesive proteins. Our data reveal that nephronectin is a preferred ligand for α8β1 integrin, and that a LFEIFEIER sequence on the C-terminal side of its RGD motif serves as a synergy site to ensure the specific high-affinity binding of nephronectin to α8β1 integrin.     

��Shotgun DNA synthesis�� for the high-throughput construction of large DNA molecules

We developed a highly scalable ‘shotgun’ DNA synthesis technology by utilizing microchip oligonucleotides, shotgun assembly and next-generation sequencing technology. A pool of microchip oligonucleotides targeting a penicillin biosynthetic gene cluster were assembled into numerous random fragments, and tagged with 20 bp degenerate barcode primer pairs. An optimal set of error-free fragments were identified by high-throughput DNA sequencing, selectively amplified using the barcode sequences, and successfully assembled into the target gene cluster.     

The Role of the ��DELSEED-loop of ATP Synthase

ATP synthase uses a unique rotational mechanism to convert chemical energy into mechanical energy and back into chemical energy. The helix-turn-helix motif, termed “DELSEED-loop,” in the C-terminal domain of the β subunit was suggested to be involved in coupling between catalysis and rotation. Here, the role of the DELSEED-loop was investigated by functional analysis of mutants of Bacillus PS3 ATP synthase that had 3–7 amino acids within the loop deleted. All mutants were able to catalyze ATP hydrolysis, some at rates several times higher than the wild-type enzyme. In most cases ATP hydrolysis in membrane vesicles generated a transmembrane proton gradient, indicating that hydrolysis occurred via the normal rotational mechanism. Except for two mutants that showed low activity and low abundance in the membrane preparations, the deletion mutants were able to catalyze ATP synthesis. In general, the mutants seemed less well coupled than the wild-type enzyme, to a varying degree. Arrhenius analysis demonstrated that in the mutants fewer bonds had to be rearranged during the rate-limiting catalytic step; the extent of this effect was dependent on the size of the deletion. The results support the idea of a significant involvement of the DELSEED-loop in mechanochemical coupling in ATP synthase. In addition, for two deletion mutants it was possible to prepare an α₃β₃γ subcomplex and measure nucleotide binding to the catalytic sites. Interestingly, both mutants showed a severely reduced affinity for MgATP at the high affinity site.F₁F₀-ATP synthase catalyzes the final step of oxidative phosphorylation and photophosphorylation, the synthesis of ATP from ADP and inorganic phosphate. F₁F₀-ATP synthase consists of the membrane-embedded F₀ subcomplex, with, in most bacteria, a subunit composition of ab₂c₁₀, and the peripheral F₁ subcomplex, with a subunit composition of α₃β₃γδε. The energy necessary for ATP synthesis is derived from an electrochemical transmembrane proton (or, in some organisms, a sodium ion) gradient. Proton flow down the gradient through F₀ is coupled to ATP synthesis on F₁ by a unique rotary mechanism. The protons flow through (half) channels at the interface of the a and c subunits, which drives rotation of the ring of c subunits. The c₁₀ ring, together with F₁ subunits γ and ε, forms the rotor. Rotation of γ leads to conformational changes in the catalytic nucleotide binding sites on the β subunits, where ADP and P_i are bound. The conformational changes result in the formation and release of ATP. Thus, ATP synthase converts electrochemical energy, the proton gradient, into mechanical energy in the form of subunit rotation and back into chemical energy as ATP. In bacteria, under certain physiological conditions, the process runs in reverse. ATP is hydrolyzed to generate a transmembrane proton gradient, which the bacterium requires for such functions as nutrient import and locomotion (for reviews, see Refs. 1–6).F₁ (or F₁-ATPase) has three catalytic nucleotide binding sites located on the β subunits at the interface to the adjacent α subunit. The catalytic sites have pronounced differences in their nucleotide binding affinity. During rotational catalysis, the sites switch their affinities in a synchronized manner; the position of γ determines which catalytic site is the high affinity site (K_d1 in the nanomolar range), which site is the medium affinity site (K_d2 ≈ 1 μm), and which site is the low affinity site (K_d3 ≈ 30–100 μm; see Refs. 7 and 8). In the original crystal structure of bovine mitochondrial F₁ (9), one of the three catalytic sites, was filled with the ATP analog AMP-PNP,² a second was filled with ADP (plus azide) (see Ref. 10), and the third site was empty. Hence, the β subunits are referred to as β_TP, β_DP, and β_E. The occupied β subunits, β_TP and β_DP, were in a closed conformation, and the empty β_E subunit was in an open conformation. The main difference between these two conformations is found in the C-terminal domain. Here, the “DELSEED-loop,” a helix-turn-helix structure containing the conserved DELSEED motif, is in an “up” position when the catalytic site on the respective β subunit is filled with nucleotide and in a “down” position when the site is empty (Fig. 1A). When all three catalytic sites are occupied by nucleotide, the previously open β_E subunit assumes an intermediate, half-closed (β_HC) conformation. It cannot close completely because of steric clashes with γ (11).Open in a separate windowFIGURE 1.The βDELSEED-loop. A, interaction of the β_TP and β_E subunits with theγ subunit.β subunits are shown in yellow andγ in blue. The DELSEED-loop (shown in orange, with the DELSEED motif itself in green)of β_TP interacts with the C-terminal helixγ and the short helix that runs nearly perpendicular to the rotation axis. The DELSEED-loop of β_E makes contact with the convex portion of γ, formed mainly by the N-terminal helix. A nucleotide molecule (shown in stick representation) occupies the catalytic site of β_TP, and the subunit is in the closed conformation. The catalytic site on β_E is empty, and the subunit is in the open conformation. This figure is based on Protein Data Bank file 1e79 (32). B, deletions in the βDELSEED-loop. The loop was “mutated” in silico to represent the PS3 ATP synthase. The 3–4-residue segments that are removed in the deletion mutants are color-coded as follows: ³⁸⁰LQDI³⁸³, pink; ³⁸⁴IAIL³⁸⁷, green; ³⁸⁸GMDE³⁹¹, yellow; ³⁹²LSD³⁹⁴, cyan; ³⁹⁵EDKL³⁹⁸, orange; ³⁹⁹VVHR⁴⁰², blue. Residues that are the most involved in contacts with γ are labeled. All figures were generated using the program PyMOL (DeLano Scientific, San Carlos, CA).The DELSEED-loop of each of the three β subunits makes contact with the γ subunit. In some cases, these contacts consist of hydrogen bonds or salt bridges between the negatively charged residues of the DELSEED motif and positively charged residues on γ. The interactions of the DELSEED-loop with γ, its movement during catalysis, the conservation of the DELSEED motif (see 12–14). Thus, the finding that an AALSAAA mutant in the α₃β₃γ complex of ATP synthase from the thermophilic Bacillus PS3, where several hydrogen bonds/salt bridges to γ are removed simultaneously, could drive rotation of γ with the same torque as the wild-type enzyme (14) came as a surprise. On the other hand, it seems possible that it is the bulk of the DELSEED-loop, more so than individual interactions, that drives rotation of γ. According to a model favored by several authors (6, 15, 16) (see also Refs. 17–19), binding of ATP (or, more precisely, MgATP) to the low affinity catalytic site on β_E and the subsequent closure of this site, accompanied by its conversion into the high affinity site, are responsible for driving the large (80–90°) rotation substep during ATP hydrolysis, with the DELSEED-loop acting as a “pushrod.” A recent molecular dynamics (20) study supports this model and implicates mainly the region around several hydrophobic residues upstream of the DELSEED motif (specifically βI386 and βL387)³ as being responsible for making contact with γ during the large rotation substep.

TABLE 1

Conservation of residues in the DELSEED-loop Amino acids found in selected species in the turn region of the DELSEED-loop. Listed are all positions subjected to deletions in the present study. Residue numbers refer to the PS3 enzyme. Consensus annotation: p, polar residue; s, small residue; h, hydrophobic residue; –, negatively charged residue; +, positively charged residue.Open in a separate windowIn the present study, we investigated the function of the DELSEED-loop using an approach less focused on individual residues, by deleting stretches of 3–7 amino acids between positions β380 and β402 of ATP synthase from the thermophilic Bacillus PS3. We analyzed the functional properties of the deletion mutants after expression in Escherichia coli. The mutants showed ATPase activities, which were in some cases surprisingly high, severalfold higher than the activity of the wild-type control. On the other hand, in all cases where ATP synthesis could be measured, the rates where below or equal to those of the wild-type enzyme. In Arrhenius plots, the hydrolysis rates of the mutants were less temperature-dependent than those of wild-type ATP synthase. In those cases where nucleotide binding to the catalytic sites could be tested, the deletion mutants had a much reduced affinity for MgATP at high affinity site 1. The functional role of the DELSEED-loop will be discussed in light of the new information.     

Integrins ��2��1 and ��11��1 regulate the survival of mesenchymal stem cells on collagen I

Although mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are the natural source for bone regeneration, the exact mechanisms governing MSC crosstalk with collagen I have not yet been uncovered. Cell adhesion to collagen I is mostly mediated by three integrin receptors – α1β1, α2β1 and α11β1. Using human MSC (hMSC), we show that α11 subunit exhibited the highest basal expression levels but on osteogenic stimulation, both α2 and α11 integrins were significantly upregulated. To elucidate the possible roles of collagen-binding integrins, we applied short hairpin RNA (shRNA)-mediated knockdown in hMSC and found that α2 or α11 deficiency, but not α1, results in a tremendous reduction of hMSC numbers owing to mitochondrial leakage accompanied by Bcl-2-associated X protein upregulation. In order to clarify the signaling conveyed by the collagen-binding integrins in hMSC, we analyzed the activation of focal adhesion kinase, extracellular signal-regulated protein kinase and serine/threonine protein kinase B (PKB/Akt) kinases and detected significantly reduced Akt phosphorylation only in α2- and α11-shRNA hMSC. Finally, experiments with hMSC from osteoporotic patients revealed a significant downregulation of α2 integrin concomitant with an augmented mitochondrial permeability. In conclusion, our study describes for the first time that disturbance of α2β1- or α11β1-mediated interactions to collagen I results in the cell death of MSCs and urges for further investigations examining the impact of MSCs in bone conditions with abnormal collagen I.     

��-Secretase Inhibitor Potency Is Decreased by Aberrant ��-Cleavage Location of the ��Swedish Mutant�� Amyloid Precursor Protein

The amyloid-β (Aβ) peptide, widely known as the causative molecule of Alzheimer disease (AD), is generated by the sequential cleavage of amyloid precursor protein (APP) by the aspartyl proteases BACE1/β-secretase and presenilin/γ-secretase. Inhibition of BACE1, therefore, is a promising strategy for preventing the progression of AD. However, β-secretase inhibitors (BSIs) exhibit unexpectedly low potency in cells expressing “Swedish mutant” APP (APPswe) and in the transgenic mouse Tg2576, an AD model overexpressing APPswe. The Swedish mutation dramatically accelerates β-cleavage of APP and hence the generation of Aβ; this acceleration has been assumed to underlie the poor inhibitory activity of BSI against APPswe processing. Here, we studied the mechanism by which the Swedish mutation causes this BSI potency decrease. Surprisingly, decreased BSI potency was not observed in an in vitro assay using purified BACE1 and substrates, indicating that the accelerated β-cleavage resulting from the Swedish mutation is not its underlying cause. By focusing on differences between the cell-based and in vitro assays, we have demonstrated here that the potency decrease is caused by the aberrant subcellular localization of APPswe processing and not by accelerated β-cleavage or the accumulation of the C-terminal fragment of β-cleaved APP. Because most patients with sporadic AD express wild type APP, our findings suggest that the wild type mouse is superior to the Tg2576 mouse as a model for determining the effective dose of BSI for AD patients. This work provides novel insights into the potency decrease of BSI and valuable suggestions for its development as a disease-modifying agent.     

NF-��B in the Immune Response of Drosophila

The nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) pathways play a major role in Drosophila host defense. Two recognition and signaling cascades control this immune response. The Toll pathway is activated by Gram-positive bacteria and by fungi, whereas the immune deficiency (Imd) pathway responds to Gram-negative bacterial infection. The basic mechanisms of recognition of these various types of microbial infections by the adult fly are now globally understood. Even though some elements are missing in the intracellular pathways, numerous proteins and interactions have been identified. In this article, we present a general picture of the immune functions of NF-κB in Drosophila with all the partners involved in recognition and in the signaling cascades.The paramount roles of NF-κB family members in Drosophila development and host defense are now relatively well established and have been the subject of several in-depth reviews in recent years, including some from this laboratory (e.g., Hoffmann 2003; Minakhina and Steward 2006; Ferrandon et al. 2007; Lemaitre and Hoffmann 2007; Aggarwal and Silverman 2008). To avoid excessive duplication, we limit this text to the general picture that has evolved over nearly two decades—since the initial demonstration that the dorsal gene plays a role in dorsoventral patterning in embryogenesis of Drosophila and that it encodes a member of the NF-κB family of inducible transactivators (Nüsslein-Volhard et al. 1980; Steward 1987; Roth et al. 1989). In the early nineties, it became apparent that NF-κB also plays a role in the antimicrobial host defense of Drosophila (Engström et al. 1993; Ip et al. 1993; Kappler et al. 1993; Reichhart et al. 1993). We focus in this article on the immune functions of NF-κB and refer the reader to recent reviews for the roles of NF-κB in development (Roth 2003; Brennan and Anderson 2004; Moussian and Roth 2005; Minakhina and Steward 2006).The Drosophila genome codes for three NF-κB family members (Fig. 1). Dorsal and DIF (for dorsal-related immunity factor) are 70 kDa proteins, with a typical Rel homology domain, which is 45% identical to that of the mammalian counterparts c-Rel, Rel A, and Rel B. Dorsal and DIF lie some 10 kbp apart on the second chromosome and probably arose from a recent duplication (Meng et al. 1999). Both proteins are retained in the cytoplasm by binding to the same 54-kDa inhibitor protein Cactus, which is homologous to mammalian IκBs (Schüpbach and Wieshaus 1989; Geisler et al. 1992). The single Drosophila Cactus gene is closest to mammalian IκBα (Huguet et al. 1997). The third member of the family in Drosophila, Relish, is a 100-kDa protein with an amino-terminal Rel domain and a carboxy-terminal extension with typical ankyrin repeats, as found in Cactus and mammalian IκBs. Relish is similar to mammalian p100 and p105 and its activation requires proteolytic cleavage as in the case for these mammalian counterparts (reviewed in Hultmark 2003).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.The NF-κB and IκB proteins in Drosophila. The length in amino acids is indicated by numbers. REL, Rel-homology domain; NLS, nuclear localization sequence; PEST, proline, glutamic acid, serine, and threonine-rich segment; Ac, acidic domain.Put in simple terms, NF-κB family members function in the host defense of Drosophila to control the expression of genes encoding immune-responsive peptides and proteins. Prominent among the induced genes are those encoding peptides with direct antimicrobial activity. To exert this function, Dorsal and DIF are translocated to the nucleus following stimulus-induced degradation of the inhibitor Cactus, whereas Relish requires stimulus-induced proteolytic cleavage for nuclear translocation of its amino-terminal Rel domain. This paradigm is similar to that observed in mammalian immunity. Again, for the sake of simplicity, we may say that the stimulus-induced degradation of Cactus, and the concomitant release of Dorsal or DIF, is primarily observed during Gram-positive bacterial and fungal infections and mediated by the Toll signaling pathway. In contrast, stimulus-induced proteolytic cleavage of Relish, and concomitant nuclear translocation of its amino-terminal Rel domain, is the hallmark of the response to Gram-negative bacterial infection and mediated by the Imd signaling pathway. Whether these pathways are also involved in the multifaceted defense against viruses remains an open question (Zambon et al. 2005). The Toll pathway was further shown to be involved in hematopoiesis of flies (Qiu et al. 1998). Of note, the Cactus-NF-κB module also plays a central role in the elimination of Plasmodium parasites in infected mosquitoes (Frolet et al. 2006). In the following, we review our information of the two established signaling pathways, Toll and Imd, which lead to gene reprogramming through NF-κB in response to bacterial and fungal infections. We first consider the upstream mechanisms that mediate the recognition of infection and allow for a certain level of discrimination between invading microorganisms. Gene reprogramming in this context is best illustrated by the induction of the antimicrobial peptide genes, which serve as the most convenient readouts of the antimicrobial defense of Drosophila (see Samakovlis et al. 1990; Reichhart et al. 1992; Ferrandon et al. 1998). Flies produce at least seven families of mostly cationic, small-sized, membrane-active peptides, with spectra variously directed against Gram-positive (defensins) and Gram-negative (diptericins, attacins, and drosocin) bacteria, and against fungi (drosomycins and metchnikowins), or with overlapping spectra (cecropins) (reviewed in Bulet et al. 1999; Hetru et al. 2003). The primary site of biosynthesis of these peptides is the fat body, a functional equivalent of the mammalian liver. Blood cells also participate in the production of antimicrobial peptides. As a rule, these molecules are secreted into the hemolymph where they reach remarkably high concentrations to oppose invading microorganisms (Hetru et al. 2003). This facet of the antimicrobial host defense is generally referred to as systemic immune response. Of note, the gut and the tracheae also produce antimicrobial peptides in response to microbes (see Tzou et al. 2000; Onfelt Tingvall et al. 2001; Liehl et al. 2006; Nehme et al. 2007).During infection, the Toll and Imd pathways control the expression of hundreds of genes. In addition to the antimicrobial peptides, these genes encode proteases, putative cytokines, cytoskeletal proteins, and many peptides and proteins whose function in the host defense are still not understood (De Gregorio et al. 2001; Irving et al. 2001).     

Thioredoxin-independent Regulation of Metabolism by the ��-Arrestin Proteins

Thioredoxin-interacting protein (Txnip), originally characterized as an inhibitor of thioredoxin, is now known to be a critical regulator of glucose metabolism in vivo. Txnip is a member of the α-arrestin protein family; the α-arrestins are related to the classical β-arrestins and visual arrestins. Txnip is the only α-arrestin known to bind thioredoxin, and it is not known whether the metabolic effects of Txnip are related to its ability to bind thioredoxin or related to conserved α-arrestin function. Here we show that wild type Txnip and Txnip C247S, a Txnip mutant that does not bind thioredoxin in vitro, both inhibit glucose uptake in mature adipocytes and in primary skin fibroblasts. Furthermore, we show that Txnip C247S does not bind thioredoxin in cells, using thiol alkylation to trap the Txnip-thioredoxin complex. Because Txnip function was independent of thioredoxin binding, we tested whether inhibition of glucose uptake was conserved in the related α-arrestins Arrdc4 and Arrdc3. Both Txnip and Arrdc4 inhibited glucose uptake and lactate output, while Arrdc3 had no effect. Structure-function analysis indicated that Txnip and Arrdc4 inhibit glucose uptake independent of the C-terminal WW-domain binding motifs, recently identified as important in yeast α-arrestins. Instead, regulation of glucose uptake was intrinsic to the arrestin domains themselves. These data demonstrate that Txnip regulates cellular metabolism independent of its binding to thioredoxin and reveal the arrestin domains as crucial structural elements in metabolic functions of α-arrestin proteins.Thioredoxin-interacting protein (Txnip),³ an inhibitor of thioredoxin disulfide reductase activity in vitro (1–3), is robustly induced by glucose (4–6) and a critical regulator of metabolism in vivo (7–10). In humans, Txnip expression is suppressed by insulin and strongly up-regulated in diabetes (7). Txnip-deficient mice have fasting hypoglycemia and ketosis (8, 9, 11, 12) with a striking enhancement of glucose uptake by peripheral tissues (8, 9). We have proposed that Txnip inhibits thioredoxin by forming a mixed disulfide with thioredoxin at its catalytic active site cysteines in a disulfide exchange reaction (13). However, it is not known how Txnip metabolic functions relate to its ability to bind thioredoxin.Structurally, Txnip belongs to the arrestin superfamily of proteins (14). The prototypical arrestins (the visual arrestins and the β-arrestins) are key regulators of receptor signaling. The β-arrestins, named for their interaction with the β-adrenergic receptor, are now known to control signaling through the multiple families of receptors (15). These arrestin proteins have two wing-like arrestin domains arranged around a central core that detects and binds selectively to the charged phosphates of activated receptors (16). The arrestin domains then act as multifunctional scaffolds that cannot only quench receptor signals by recruiting endocytotic machinery and ubiquitin ligases, but also start new signal cascades (15). Recently, arrestin-β2 has also been shown to play a key role in metabolism as a controller of insulin receptor signaling that is deficient in diabetes (17).In addition to the classical visual/β-arrestins, a large number of arrestins more closely related to Txnip are present throughout multicellular evolution. These proteins have been termed the “α-arrestins,” as they are of more ancient origin than the visual/β family (14). Although no structures are known of the α-arrestins to date, they appear highly likely to share the overall fold: two β-sheet sandwich arrestin domains connected by a short linker sequence (14, 18). Confidence in this prediction has been enhanced by the surprising finding that the vps26 family of proteins, even more distantly related to the classical arrestins than Txnip, also share the arrestin fold (19). The vps26 proteins are a component of the retromer complex that controls retrograde transport of recycling endosomes to the trans-Golgi network. This functional overlap with visual/β-arrestin regulation of endocytosis suggests that control of endosome formation and transport may be a conserved function of the arrestin superfamily fold.The functions of the mammalian α-arrestins remain unclear. Humans have six α-arrestins: Txnip and five other proteins, which have been assigned the names Arrdc1–5 (arrestin domain-containing 1–5) (13). Very little is known about these other α-arrestins; thioredoxin binding is not conserved beyond Txnip (13, 20). More is known in yeast: recent reports suggest that α-arrestins function in regulation of endocytosis and protein ubiquitination through PXXY motifs in their C-terminal tails (21–25). However, as all the vertebrate α-arrestins have diverged from the ancestral α-arrestins (14), their structure-function relationships may differ from yeast α-arrestins.Given that other α-arrestins are not thioredoxin-binding proteins, we hypothesized that Txnip metabolic functions may be conserved in mammalian α-arrestins and independent of its interaction with thioredoxin. Overexpression of Txnip in vitro can decrease levels of available thioredoxin and increase levels of reactive oxygen species (1, 3, 26). However, in vivo studies of two different Txnip-deficient mouse models found no change in available thioredoxin levels (8, 27). Txnip reportedly binds to other proteins including Jab1 (28) and Dnajb5 (29), but it is not clear to what extent these interactions are themselves independent of a Txnip-thioredoxin complex (30).Using overexpression of a mutant Txnip that does not bind thioredoxin, we show here that a major metabolic function of Txnip, its inhibition of glucose uptake, does not require interaction with thioredoxin. Instead, we show that inhibition of glucose uptake is a conserved function of another human α-arrestin, Arrdc4. Studies of Txnip mutants and chimeric α-arrestins suggest that the metabolic functions of Txnip and Arrdc4 are intrinsic to the arrestin domains.     

Analysis of the ��shelter tree-effect�� of natural and exotic forest canopies on the growth of young Podocarpus falcatus trees in southern Ethiopia

Plantations of exotic trees on areas where tropical forest has been clear-felled have been reported to facilitate regrowth of indigenous tree species. This so-called nurse- or shelter tree effect was investigated in a montane semihumid site in southern Ethiopia where plantations of Pinus patula and Eucalyptus saligna grow in close vicinity to the natural Podocarpus falcatus mixed forest. Physiological performance of P. falcatus saplings growing in the exotic and the natural forests was investigated over the year. Compared with the natural forest, photosynthetic carbon gain and growth of the saplings were significantly enhanced under Pinus patula while likewise retarded under Eucalyptus saligna. Diverging effects of the differently dense shelter canopies on the saplings could be traced to differences in the sub-canopy microclimates and particularly to the intensities and temporal distribution of photosynthetic active radiation (PAR). Moisture also played an important role for photosynthetic carbon gain: while the morning patterns of CO₂ uptake were significantly correlated with the patterns of sunflecks, stomatal conductance was the determinant factor in the afternoon. Analysis of the photosynthetic efficiency of sunflecks revealed a lower quantum yield than the basic diffuse PAR intensity. Compared with a theoretically even distribution of the daily PAR, CO₂ uptake under the real light climate was 70% under Pinus and in the natural forest, and 59% under Eucalyptus. Relating growth rates of Podocarpus saplings to photosynthesis the microclimate under Pinus was 2.5 times as effective as that in the natural forest and five times more effective than under Eucalyptus.