Choline Promotes Nicotinic Receptor ��4 + ��2 Up-regulation

Neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR) composed of α4 + β2 subunits, the high affinity nicotine-binding site in the mammalian brain, up-regulate in response to chronic nicotine exposure. The identities of endogenous mediators of this process are unknown. We find that choline also up-regulates α4 + β2 nAChRs stably expressed by HEK293 cells as measured by increased [³H]epibatidine density. Choline-mediated up-regulation is dose-dependent and corresponds with an increase in β2 subunit protein expression. The choline kinase inhibitor hemicholinium-3 inhibits ∼60% of choline-mediated up-regulation revealing both an HC3-dependent and -independent pathway. Furthermore, choline-mediated up-regulation is not additive with up-regulation agents such as nicotine, but it is additive with weaker promoters of the up-regulation process. When co-applied with the pro-inflammatory cytokine tumor necrosis factor α, choline-mediated up-regulation is increased further through a mechanism that includes an increase in both α4 and β2 protein expression, and this is inhibited by the p38 MAPK inhibitor SB202190. These findings extend the view that up-regulation of α4 + β2 nAChRs is a normal physiological response to altered metabolic and inflammatory conditions.     

Aquaporin-2 in the ��-omics�� Era

Vasopressin controls renal water excretion largely through actions to regulate the water channel aquaporin-2 in collecting duct principal cells. Our knowledge of the mechanisms involved has increased markedly in recent years with the advent of methods for large-scale systems-level profiling such as protein mass spectrometry, yeast two-hybrid analysis, and oligonucleotide microarrays. Here we review this progress.Regulation of water excretion by the kidney is one of the most visible aspects of everyday physiology. An outdoor tennis game on a hot summer day can result in substantial water losses by sweating, and the kidneys respond by reducing water excretion. In contrast, excessive intake of water, a frequent occurrence in everyday life, results in excretion of copious amounts of clear urine. These responses serve to exact tight control on the tonicity of body fluids, maintaining serum osmolality in the range of 290–294 mosmol/kg of H₂O through the regulated return of water from the pro-urine in the renal collecting ducts to the bloodstream.The importance of this process is highlighted when the regulation fails. For example, polyuria (rapid uncontrolled excretion of water) is a sometimes devastating consequence of lithium therapy for bipolar disorder. On the other side of the coin are water balance disorders that result from excessive renal water retention causing systemic hypo-osmolality or hyponatremia. Hyponatremia due to excessive water retention can be seen with severe congestive heart failure, hepatic cirrhosis, and the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuresis.The chief regulator of water excretion is the peptide hormone AVP,² whereas the chief molecular target for regulation is the water channel AQP2. In this minireview, we describe new progress in the understanding of the molecular mechanisms involved in regulation of AQP2 by AVP in collecting duct cells, with emphasis on new information derived from “systems-level” approaches involving large-scale profiling and screening techniques such as oligonucleotide arrays, protein mass spectrometry, and yeast two-hybrid analysis. Most of the progress with these techniques is in the identification of individual molecules involved in AVP signaling and binding interactions with AQP2. Additional related issues are addressed in several recent reviews (1–4).     

Presynaptic Targeting of ��4��2 Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Is Regulated by Neurexin-1��

The mechanisms involved in the targeting of neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (AChRs), critical for their functional organization at neuronal synapses, are not well understood. We have identified a novel functional association between α4β2 AChRs and the presynaptic cell adhesion molecule, neurexin-1β. In non-neuronal tsA 201 cells, recombinant neurexin-1β and mature α4β2 AChRs form complexes. α4β2 AChRs and neurexin-1β also coimmunoprecipitate from rat brain lysates. When exogenous α4β2 AChRs and neurexin-1β are coexpressed in hippocampal neurons, they are robustly targeted to hemi-synapses formed between these neurons and cocultured tsA 201 cells expressing neuroligin-1, a postsynaptic binding partner of neurexin-1β. The extent of synaptic targeting is significantly reduced in similar experiments using a mutant neurexin-1β lacking the extracellular domain. Additionally, when α4β2 AChRs, α7 AChRs, and neurexin-1β are coexpressed in the same neuron, only the α4β2 AChR colocalizes with neurexin-1β at presynaptic terminals. Collectively, these data suggest that neurexin-1β targets α4β2 AChRs to presynaptic terminals, which mature by trans-synaptic interactions between neurexins and neuroligins. Interestingly, human neurexin-1 gene dysfunctions have been implicated in nicotine dependence and in autism spectrum disorders. Our results provide novel insights as to possible mechanisms by which dysfunctional neurexins, through downstream effects on α4β2 AChRs, may contribute to the etiology of these neurological disorders.The clustering of ion channels or receptors and precise targeting to pre- and postsynaptic specializations in neurons is critical to efficiently regulate synaptic transmission. Within the central nervous system, neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (AChRs)⁵ regulate the release of neurotransmitters at presynaptic sites (1) and mediate fast synaptic transmission at postsynaptic sites of neurons (2). These receptors are part of a family of acetylcholine-gated ion channels that are assembled from various combinations of α2–α10 and β2–β4 subunits (3). AChRs participate in the regulation of locomotion, affect, reward, analgesia, anxiety, learning, and attention (4, 5).The α4β2 subtype is the most abundant AChR receptor expressed in the brain. Multiple lines of evidence support a major role for α4β2 AChRs in nicotine addiction. α4β2 AChRs show high affinity for nicotine (6) and are located on the dopaminergic projections of ventral tegmental area neurons to the medium spiny neurons of the nucleus accumbens (7, 8). Furthermore, β2 AChR subunit knock-out mice lose their sensitivity to nicotine in passive avoidance tasks (9) and show attenuated self-administration of nicotine (10). α4 AChR subunit knock-out mice also exhibit a loss of tonic control of striatal basal dopamine release (11). Finally, experiments with knock-in mice expressing α4β2 AChRs hypersensitive to nicotine demonstrate that α4β2 AChRs indeed mediate the essential features of nicotine addiction including reward, tolerance, and sensitization (12). High resolution ultrastructural studies show that α4 subunit-containing AChRs are clustered at dopaminergic axonal terminals (13), and a sequence motif has been identified within the α4 AChR subunit cytoplasmic domain that is essential for receptor trafficking to axons (14). However, the mechanisms underlying the targeting and clustering of α4β2 AChRs to presynaptic sites in neurons remain elusive.Recently, bi-directional interactions between neurexins and neuroligins have been shown to promote synapse assembly and maturation by fostering pre- and postsynaptic differentiation (reviewed in Refs. 15–17). The neurexins are encoded by three genes corresponding to neurexins I–III (18, 19), each encoding longer α-neurexins and shorter β-neurexins, because of differential promoter use. Neurexins recruit N- and P/Q-type calcium channels via scaffolding proteins, including calmodulin-associated serine/threonine kinase (20), to active zones of presynaptic terminals (21, 22). Recently, α-neurexins were shown to specifically induce GABAergic postsynaptic differentiation (23). Neuroligins, postsynaptic binding partners of neurexins, cluster N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors and GABA_A receptors by recruiting the scaffolding proteins PSD-95 (post-synaptic density 95) and gephyrin, respectively (24, 25). Interestingly, neurexins and neuroligins also modulate the postsynaptic clustering of α3-containing AChRs in chick ciliary ganglia (26, 27). In this study, using multiple experimental strategies, we provide evidence for the formation of complexes between neurexin-1β and α4β2 AChRs and a role for neurexin in the targeting of α4β2 AChRs to presynaptic terminals of neurons.     

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.     

Targeting of Integrin ��1 and Kinesin 2�� by MicroRNA 183

MicroRNA 183 (miR-183) has been reported to inhibit tumor invasiveness and is believed to be involved in the development and function of ciliated neurosensory organs. We have recently found that expression of miR-183 increased after the induction of cellular senescence by exposure to H₂O₂. To gain insight into the biological roles of miR-183 we investigated two potential novel targets: integrin β1 (ITGB1) and kinesin 2α (KIF2A). miR-183 significantly decreased the expression of ITGB1 and KIF2A measured by Western blot. Targeting of the 3′-untranslated region (3′-UTR) of ITGB1 and KIF2A by miR-183 was confirmed by luciferase assay. Transfection with miR-183 led to a significant decrease in cell invasion and migration capacities of HeLa cells that could be rescued by expression of ITGB1 lacking the 3′-UTR. Although miR-183 had no effects on cell adhesion in HeLa cells, it significantly decreased adhesion to laminin, gelatin, and collagen type I in normal human diploid fibroblasts and human trabecular meshwork cells. These effects were also rescued by expression of ITGB1 lacking the 3′-UTR. Targeting of KIF2A by miR-183 resulted in some increase in the formation of cells with monopolar spindles in HeLa cells but not in human diploid fibroblast or human trabecular meshwork cells. The regulation of ITGB1 expression by miR-183 provides a new mechanism for the anti-metastatic role of miR-183 and suggests that this miRNA could influence the development and function in neurosensory organs, and contribute to functional alterations associated with cellular senescence in human diploid fibroblasts and human trabecular meshwork cells.     

Membrane Partitioning: ��Classical�� and ��Nonclassical�� Hydrophobic Effects

The free energy of transfer of nonpolar solutes from water to lipid bilayers is often dominated by a large negative enthalpy rather than the large positive entropy expected from the hydrophobic effect. This common observation has led to the idea that membrane partitioning is driven by the "nonclassical" hydrophobic effect. We examined this phenomenon by characterizing the partitioning of the well-studied peptide melittin using isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) and circular dichroism (CD). We studied the temperature dependence of the entropic (-TΔS) and enthalpic (ΔH) components of free energy (ΔG) of partitioning of melittin into lipid membranes made of various mixtures of zwitterionic and anionic lipids. We found significant variations of the entropic and enthalpic components with temperature, lipid composition and vesicle size but only small changes in ΔG (entropy-enthalpy compensation). The heat capacity associated with partitioning had a large negative value of about -0.5 kcal mol(-1) K(-1). This hallmark of the hydrophobic effect was found to be independent of lipid composition. The measured heat capacity values were used to calculate the hydrophobic-effect free energy ΔG (hΦ), which we found to dominate melittin partitioning regardless of lipid composition. In the case of anionic membranes, additional free energy comes from coulombic attraction, which is characterized by a small effective peptide charge due to the lack of additivity of hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions in membrane interfaces [Ladokhin and White J Mol Biol 309:543-552, 2001]. Our results suggest that there is no need for a special effect-the nonclassical hydrophobic effect-to describe partitioning into lipid bilayers.     

Nuclear import of exogenous FGF1 requires the ER-protein LRRC59 and the importins Kpnα1 and Kpnβ1

Fibroblast growth factor 1 (FGF1) taken up by cells into endocytic vesicles can be translocated across vesicular membranes into the cytosol and the nucleus where it has a growth regulatory activity. Previously, leucine-rich repeat containing 59 (LRRC59) was identified as an intracellular binding partner of FGF1, but its biological role remained unknown. Here, we show that LRRC59 is strictly required for nuclear import of exogenous FGF1. siRNA-mediated depletion of LRRC59 did not inhibit the translocation of FGF1 into cytosol, but blocked the nuclear import of FGF1. We also found that an nuclear localization sequence (NLS) in FGF1, Ran GTPase, karyopherin-α1 (Kpnα1), and Kpnβ1 were required for nuclear import of FGF1. Nuclear import of exogenous FGF2, which depends on CEP57/Translokin, was independent of LRRC59, but was dependent on Kpnα1 and Kpnβ1, while the nuclear import of FGF1 was independent of CEP57. LRRC59 is a membrane-anchored protein that localizes to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and the nuclear envelope (NE). We found that LRRC59 possesses NLS-like sequences in its cytosolic part that can mediate nuclear import of soluble LRRC59 variants, and that the localization of LRRC59 to the NE depends on Kpnβ1. We propose that LRRC59 facilitates transport of cytosolic FGF1 through nuclear pores by interaction with Kpns and movement of LRRC59 along the ER and NE membranes.     

Protein kinase CK2 accumulation in ��oncophilic�� cells: causes and effects

At variance with protein kinases expressed by oncogenes, CK2 is endowed with constitutive activity under normal conditions, and no CK2 gain-of-function mutants are known. Its amount, however, is abnormally high in malignant cells where it appears to be implicated in many of the cell biology phenomena associated with cancer. These observations can be reconciled assuming that tumor cells develop an overdue reliance ("non-oncogene addiction") on abnormally high CK2 level. While the potential of this latter to generate an environment favorable to neoplasia is consistent with the global antiapoptotic and prosurvival role played by CK2, it is not clear what is determining accumulation of CK2 in cells "predisposed" to become malignant. Exploiting the apoptosis sensitive (S) or resistant (R) CEM cell model, characterized by sharply different CK2 levels, we have now correlated the level and degradation rate of CK2 to those of the chaperone proteins Hsp90 and Cdc37. We show in particular that persistence of high CK2 level in R-CEM, as opposed to S-CEM, is accompanied by the presence of an immunospecific form of Cdc37 not detectable in S-CEM and refractory to staurosporine-induced degradation.     

Suboptimal Activation of Protease-activated Receptors Enhances ��2��1 Integrin-mediated Platelet Adhesion to Collagen

Thrombin and fibrillar collagen are potent activators of platelets at sites of vascular injury. Both agonists cause platelet shape change, granule secretion, and aggregation to form the primary hemostatic plug. Human platelets express two thrombin receptors, protease-activated receptors 1 and 4 (PAR1 and PAR4) and two collagen receptors, the α₂β₁ integrin (α₂β₁) and the glycoprotein VI (GPVI)/FcRγ chain complex. Although these receptors and their signaling mechanisms have been intensely studied, it is not known whether and how these receptors cooperate in the hemostatic function of platelets. This study examined cooperation between the thrombin and collagen receptors in platelet adhesion by utilizing a collagen-related peptide (α2-CRP) containing the α₂β₁-specific binding motif, GFOGER, in conjunction with PAR-activating peptides. We demonstrate that platelet adhesion to α2-CRP is substantially enhanced by suboptimal PAR activation (agonist concentrations that do not stimulate platelet aggregation) using the PAR4 agonist peptide and thrombin. The enhanced adhesion induced by suboptimal PAR4 activation was α₂β₁-dependent and GPVI/FcRγ-independent as revealed in experiments with α₂β₁- or FcRγ-deficient mouse platelets. We further show that suboptimal activation of other platelet G_q-linked G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) produces enhanced platelet adhesion to α2-CRP. The enhanced α₂β₁-mediated platelet adhesion is controlled by phospholipase C (PLC), but is not dependent on granule secretion, activation of α_IIbβ₃ integrin, or on phosphoinositol-3 kinase (PI3K) activity. In conclusion, we demonstrate a platelet priming mechanism initiated by suboptimal activation of PAR4 or other platelet G_q-linked GPCRs through a PLC-dependent signaling cascade that promotes enhanced α₂β₁ binding to collagens containing GFOGER sites.     

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).