Cdk5: A regulator of epithelial cell adhesion and migration

Cell adhesion is a fundamental property of epithelial cells required for anchoring, migration and survival. During cell migration, the formation and disruption of adhesion sites is stringently regulated by integration of multiple, sequential signals acting in distinct regions of the cell. Recent findings implicate cyclin dependent kinase 5 (Cdk5) in the signaling pathways that regulate cell adhesion and migration of a variety of cell types. Experiments with epithelial cell lines indicate that Cdk5 activity exerts its effects by limiting Src activity in regions where Rho activity is required for stress fiber contraction and by phosphorylating the talin head to stabilize nascent focal adhesions. Both pathways regulate cell migration by increasing adhesive strength.Key words: Cdk5, Src, Rho, stress fibers, epithelial cells, cell adhesion, cell migrationAnchoring of epithelial cells to their basement membrane is essential to maintain their morphology, normal physiological function and survival. Cells attach to extracellular matrix components by means of membrane-spanning integrins, which cluster and link to the actin cytoskeleton via components of focal adhesions. At focal adhesions, actin is bundled into stress fibers, multi-protein cellular contractile machines that strengthen attachment and provide traction during migration.¹ Stress fiber contraction is generated by myosin II, a hexamer containing one pair of each non-muscle heavy chains (NMHCs), essential light chains, and myosin regulatory light chains (MRLC). Myosin motor activity is regulated by phosphorylation of MRLC at Thr18/Ser19 and is required to generate tension on actin filaments and to maintain stress fibers.¹ Although a number of kinases have been identified which phosphorylate MRLC at Thr18/Ser19, the principal kinases in most cells are myosin light chain kinase (MLCK)² and Rho-kinase (ROCK),³ a downstream effector of the small GTPas, RhoA.Rho family small GTPases play a central role in regulating many aspects of cytoskeletal organization and contraction.⁴ These GTPases are subject to both positive regulation by guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs), such as GEF-H1,^5,6 and negative regulation by GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs), such as p190RhoGAP.⁷ As cells spread, the Rho-family GTPase, Cdc42, is activated at the cell periphery, leading to the formation of numerous filapodia. Focal adhesion formation is first seen at the tips of these filapodia as focal adhesion proteins such as talin and focal adhesion kinase (FAK) bind to the intracellular domains of localized integrins.⁸ Src is recruited to activated FAK at the nascent focal adhesion and generates binding sites for additional focal adhesion proteins by phosphorylating FAK and paxillin.⁹ Src activity is essential for the further maturation of the focal adhesion and for activating the Rho-family GTPase, Rac, leading to Arp2/3-dependent actin polymerization, formation of a lamellipodium and extension of the cell boundary. Simultaneously, Src inhibits RhoA by phosphorylating and activating its upstream inhibitor, p190RhoGAP. As the focal adhesion matures, Src is deactivated, allowing the Rho activation necessary for mDia-dependent actin polymerization,¹⁰ myosin-dependent cytoskeletal contraction⁵ and tight adhesion to the extracellular matrix. Since new focal adhesions continually form at the distal boundary of the spreading cell, the most mature and highly contracted stress fibers are localized at the center of the cell.Cell adhesion is an essential component of cell migration: if adhesion is too weak, cells can not generate the traction necessary for migration; if it is too strong, they are unable to overcome the forces that anchor them in place. Thus, the relationship between adhesion force and migration rate is a bell-shaped curve.¹¹ Migration rate increases as adhesive strength increases until an optimum value is reached. Thereafter, increases in adhesive strength decrease migration rate. Since the strength of adhesion depends on extracellular matrix composition as well as the types of integrin expressed in the cell, a decrease in adhesive strength may result in either faster or slower cell migration.Several lines of evidence indicate that the proline-directed serine/threonine kinase cyclin dependent kinase 5 (Cdk5) plays an integral role in regulating cell adhesion and/or migration in epithelial cells.^12–17 Cdk5 is an atypical member of cyclin dependent kinase family, which is activated by the non-cyclin proteins, p35 or p39.¹⁸ Cdk5 is most abundant in neuronal cells where it also regulates migration and cytoskeletal dynamics.¹⁹ In neurons, Cdk5 exerts its effects on migration at least in part by phosphorylating FAK,¹⁹ and the LIS1 associated protein, NDEL1.²⁰ In contrast, recent findings have revealed two novel pathways involved in Cdk5-dependent regulation of migration in epithelial cells.^16,17One of these newly discovered mechanisms links Cdk5 activation to control of stress fiber contraction.¹⁶ We have found that Cdk5 and its activator, p35, co-localize with phosphorylated myosin regulatory light chain (MRLC) on centrally located stress fibers in spreading cells.¹⁶ Moreover, Cdk5 is strongly activated in spreading cells as central stress fiber contraction becomes pronounced.²¹ Since contraction of these central stress fibers is primarily responsible for tight attachment between the cell and the extracellular matrix,⁵ the above findings suggested that Cdk5 might regulate cell adhesion by regulating MRLC phosphorylation. To test this possibility we inhibited Cdk5 activity by several independent means and found that MRLC phosphorylation was likewise inhibited. In addition, we found that inhibiting Cdk5 either prevented the formation of central stress fibers or led to their dissolution. The concave cell boundaries characteristic of contracting cells were also lost.¹⁶ Since MRLC lacks a favorable site for phosphorylation by Cdk5, we asked whether Cdk5 might affect the upstream signaling pathways that regulate MRLC phosphorylation. Experiments with specific pathway inhibitors indicated that the MRLC phosphorylation involved in stress fiber contraction in lens epithelial cells was regulated largely by Rho-kinase (ROCK). Inhibiting Cdk5 activity not only significantly reduced ROCK activity, but also blocked activation of its upstream regulator, Rho. To explore the mechanism behind the Cdk5-dependent regulation of Rho, we turned our attention to p190RhoGAP, which appears to play a major role in regulating Rho-dependent stress fiber contraction.⁷ This RhoGAP must be phosphorylated by Src to be active; as a result, Rho activity is low in the early stages of cell spreading, when Src activity is high. At later times, Src activity falls, p190RhoGAP activity is lost, and Rho-GTP is formed, enabling Rho-dependent myosin phosphorylation and stress fiber contraction.^9,10 We have found that inhibiting Cdk5 activity during this later stage of cell spreading increases Src activity and Src-dependent phosphorylation of its substrate, p190RhoGAP. This in turn leads to decreased Rho activity accompanied by loss of Rho-dependent myosin phosphorylation, dissolution of central stress fibers, and loss of cell contraction (Fig. 1). Moreover, inhibiting Src protects cells from the loss of Rho activation and dissolution of central stress fibers produced by inhibiting Cdk5.¹⁶ Since the effects of Cdk5 on Rho-dependent cytoskeletal contraction appear to be mediated almost entirely through Cdk5-dependent regulation of Src, it will be particularly important to determine how Cdk5 limits Src activity.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Cdk5 inhibition reduces contraction of preformed stress fibers. (A) Cells were spread on fibronectin for 60 min to adhere, allowing them to form focal adhesion and stress fibers (pre-incubation) and then further incubated for 2 h in absence (control) or presence of Cdk5 inhibitor (olomoucine) and stained with phalloidin. The cells without olomoucine (control) had concave boundaries and well-formed stress fibers. Olomoucine treated cells showed loss of central stress fibers and failure to contract. Scale bar = 20 µ. (B) experimental conditions were same as shown in (A). Cdk5 inhibitor, olomoucine, was added after 1 h of spreading (indicated as t = 0) and cells were incubated for an additional 2h in absence or presence of olomoucine. Cell lysates were immunoblotted with antibodies for pMRLC (upper) and MRLC (middle). Tubulin was used as a loading control (lower). Lane 1: untreated (at 0 h); Lane 2: untreated (at 2 h); Lane 3: Cdk5 inhibitor (olomoucine) treated. (C) results of three independent experiments of the type shown in (B) were quantified by densitometry and normalized to determine the relative levels of pMRLC at each time. Statistical analysis demonstrated a significant (p < 0.05) decrease in pMRLC level in olomoucine treated cells compared to untreated cells.The central stress fibers regulated by Cdk5 play a central role in anchoring cells to the substratum, and their loss when Cdk5 is inhibited will reduce adhesion. As discussed above, reduction in cell adhesion may either increase or decrease the rate of cell migration, depending on the cell type and extracellular matrix composition. In lens and corneal epithelial cells, the reduction in adhesion produced by Cdk5 inhibition promotes cell migration.^13,15,16,22 Moreover, regulation of Rho/Rho-kinase signaling by Cdk5 seems to be a major factor in determining the migration rate, since inhibitors of Cdk5 and Rho-kinase increased lens epithelial cell migration rate equivalently and inhibiting both produced no additional effect.¹⁶Interestingly, an independent line of investigation has shown that this is not the only mechanism underlying Cdk5-dependent regulation of cell adhesion and migration. Cdk5 also localizes at focal contacts at the cell periphery and phosphorylates the focal adhesion protein talin.¹⁷ The talin phosphorylation site has been identified as S425, near the FERM domain in the talin head region. Upon focal adhesion disassembly, this region is separated from the talin rod domain by calpain-dependent cleavage.²³ Phosphorylation at S425 by Cdk5 blocks ubiquitylation and degradation of the talin head by inhibiting interaction with the E3 ligase, Smurf1. This leads, ultimately, to greater stability of lamellipodia and newly formed focal adhesions, thus strengthening adhesion to the substrate.¹⁷ Although the exact molecular events involved in this stabilization are not yet clear, it has been suggested that the talin head may “prime” integrins to bind full length talin.²⁴ One possible scenario describing how this might occur is shown in Figure 2. By permitting the isolated head region to escape degradation following calpain cleavage, Cdk5-dependent phosphorylation may stablize a pool of talin head domains to bind focal contacts within the lamellipodium. It is known that the isolated talin head region can bind and activate integrins during cell protrusion.²⁵ The resulting integrin activation would be expected to stabilize the lamellipodium by strengthening integrin-dependent adhesion. Since the head domain lacks sites for actin binding, which are located in the talin rod domain,²⁶ the bound head domain would have to be replaced by full length talin to enable focal adhesion attachment to the cytoskeleton.²⁵ The head domain might promote this replacement by recruiting the PIP-kinase needed to generate PI(4,5) P₂,²³ which facilitates binding of full length talin to integrin by exposing the auto-inhibited integrin binding sites.²⁷ The binding of full length talin and the resulting link between the integrins and the actin cytoskeleton would then further strengthen adhesion.²⁵ This model predicts that full length talin would bind poorly in the absence of Cdk5 activity, due to degradation of the talin head and the resulting limited availability of PI(4,5)P₂, and thus provides a possible explanation for the observed rapid turnover of peripheral focal adhesions.¹⁷ Clearly, other models may be proposed to explain the increase in adhesion produced by talin head phosphorylation, and deciding among them will be an active area for future investigation. Nonetheless, it is now certain that talin is a key substrate for Cdk5 at focal adhesions.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Mechanism of Cdk5-dependent regulation of cell adhesion and migration. Binding of p35 to Cdk5 forms the active Cdk5/p35 kinase, which regulates cell adhesion and migration in two distinct ways. Cdk5-dependent phosphorylation of the talin head domain at Ser425 prevents its ubiquitylation and degradation, allowing it to persist following calpain cleavage. The phosphorylated talin head may then bind to integrin at peripheral sites and recruit PIP-K, which converts PI(4)P to PI(4,5)P₂. PI(4,5)P₂ may promote replacement of the talin head by full length talin. Full length talin recruits other focal adhesion proteins to form the mature focal adhesion. The talin tail provides the site for the actin binding and polymerization. Polymerized actin is subsequently bundled into stress fibers. Cdk5/p35 also regulates the Rho-dependent myosin phosphorylation necessary for stress fiber stability and cytoskeletal contraction by limiting Src activity. This in turn decreases Src-dependent phosphorylation of p190RhoGAP, favoring Rho-GTP formation, Rho-dependent stress fiber polymerization, stabilization and contraction. Both pathways modulate cell migration by increasing adhesive strength.In summary, the presently available data indicate that Cdk5 has at least two distinct functions in cell adhesion (Fig. 2). On the one hand, it stabilizes peripheral focal adhesions and promotes their attachment to the cytoskeleton by phosphorylating the talin head. On the other hand, once the actin cytoskeleton has been organized into stress fibers, Cdk5 enhances the Rho activation essential for stability and contraction of central stress fibers by limiting Src activity. The discovery that Cdk5 is involved in two separate events required for efficient migration, suggests that it may coordinate multiple signaling pathways. The known involvement of Cdk5 and its activator, p35, in regulating microtubule stability suggests yet another mechanism by which Cdk5 activity may regulate cytoskeletal function. Microtubules are closely associated with stress fibers²⁸ and their depolymerization has been shown to release the Rho activating protein, GEF-H1, leading to Rho activation and Rho-dependent myosin contraction.⁶ Since cell adhesion and migration play an important role in the progression of many pathological conditions, Cdk5, its substrates and its downstream effectors involved in cell adhesion may provide novel targets for therapeutic intervention.^15,29     

RALFs: Peptide regulators of plant growth

Peptide signaling regulates a variety of developmental processes and environmental responses in plants.^1–6 For example, the peptide systemin induces the systemic defense response in tomato⁷ and defensins are small cysteine-rich proteins that are involved in the innate immune system of plants.^8,9 The CLAVATA3 peptide regulates meristem size¹⁰ and the SCR peptide is the pollen self-incompatibility recognition factor in the Brassicaceae.^11,12 LURE peptides produced by synergid cells attract pollen tubes to the embryo sac.⁹ RALFs are a recently discovered family of plant peptides that play a role in plant cell growth.Key words: peptide, growth factor, alkalinization     

Structural basis of transmembrane domain interactions in integrin signaling

Cell surface receptors of the integrin family are pivotal to cell adhesion and migration. The activation state of heterodimeric αβ integrins is correlated to the association state of the single-pass α and β transmembrane domains. The association of integrin αIIbβ3 transmembrane domains, resulting in an inactive receptor, is characterized by the asymmetric arrangement of a straight (αIIb) and tilted (β3) helix relative to the membrane in congruence to the dissociated structures. This allows for a continuous association interface centered on helix-helix glycine-packing and an unusual αIIb(GFF) structural motif that packs the conserved Phe-Phe residues against the β3 transmembrane helix, enabling αIIb(D723)β3(R995) electrostatic interactions. The transmembrane complex is further stabilized by the inactive ectodomain, thereby coupling its association state to the ectodomain conformation. In combination with recently determined structures of an inactive integrin ectodomain and an activating talin/β complex that overlap with the αβ transmembrane complex, a comprehensive picture of integrin bi-directional transmembrane signaling has emerged.Key words: cell adhesion, membrane protein, integrin, platelet, transmembrane complex, transmembrane signalingThe communication of biological signals across the plasma membrane is fundamental to cellular function. The ubiquitous family of integrin adhesion receptors exhibits the unusual ability to convey signals bi-directionally (outside-in and inside-out signaling), thereby controlling cell adhesion, migration and differentiation.^1–5 Integrins are Type I heterodimeric receptors that consist of large extracellular domains (>700 residues), single-pass transmembrane (TM) domains, and mostly short cytosolic tails (<70 residues). The activation state of heterodimeric integrins is correlated to the association state of the TM domains of their α and β subunits.^6–10 TM dissociation initiated from the outside results in the transmittal of a signal into the cell, whereas dissociation originating on the inside results in activation of the integrin to bind ligands such as extracellular matrix proteins. The elucidation of the role of the TM domains in integrin-mediated adhesion and signaling has been the subject of extensive research efforts, perhaps commencing with the demonstration that the highly conserved GFFKR sequence motif of α subunits (Fig. 1), which closely follows the first charged residue on the intracellular face, αIIb(K989), constrains the receptor to a default low affinity state.¹¹ Despite these efforts, an understanding of this sequence motif had not been reached until such time as the structure of the αIIb TM segment was determined.¹² In combination with the structure of the β3 TM segment¹³ and available mutagenesis data,^6,9,10,14,15 this has allowed the first correct prediction of the overall association of an integrin αβ TM complex.¹² The predicted association was subsequently confirmed by the αIIbβ3 complex structure determined in phospholipid bicelles,¹⁶ as well as by the report of a similar structure based on molecular modeling using disulfide-based structural constraints.¹⁷ In addition to the structures of the dissociated and associated αβ TM domains, their membrane embedding was defined^{12,13,16,18,19} and it was experimentally recognized that, in the context of the native receptor, the TM complex is stabilized by the inactive, resting ectodomain.¹⁶ These advances in integrin membrane structural biology are complemented by the recent structures of a resting integrin ectodomain and an activating talin/β cytosolic tail complex that overlap with the αβ TM complex,^20,21 allowing detailed insight into integrin bi-directional TM signaling.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Amino acid sequence of integrin αIIb and β3 transmembrane segments and flanking regions. Membrane-embedded residues^{12,13,16,18,19} are enclosed by a gray box. Residues 991–995 constitute the highly conserved GFFKR sequence motif of integrin α subunits.     

Serine/threonine protein phosphatases: Multi-purpose enzymes in control of defense mechanisms

Depending on the threat to a plant, different pattern recognition receptors, such as receptor-like kinases, identify the stress and trigger action by appropriate defense response development.^1,2 The plant immunity system primary response to these challenges is rapid accumulation of phytohormones, such as ethylene (ET), salicylic acid (SA), and jasmonic acid (JA) and its derivatives. These phytohormones induce further signal transduction and appropriate defenses against biotic threats.^3,4 Phytohormones play crucial roles not only in the initiation of diverse downstream signaling events in plant defense but also in the activation of effective defenses through an essential process called signaling pathway crosstalk, a mechanism involved in transduction signals between two or more distinct, “linear signal transduction pathways simultaneously activated in the same cell.”⁵     

The shared and separate roles of aposematic (warning) coloration and the co-evolution hypothesis in defending autumn leaves

The potential anti-herbivory functions of colorful (red and yellow) autumn leaves received considerable attention in the last decade. The most studied and discussed is the co-evolutionary hypothesis, according to which autumn coloration signals the quality of defense to insects that migrate to the trees in autumn. In addition to classic aposematism (repellency due to signaling unpalatability, non profitability of consumption, or danger for whatever reasons) that operates immediately, this hypothesis also proposes that the reduced fitness of the insects is in their next generation hatching in the spring from eggs laid on the trees in autumn. Supporters of the co-evolutionary hypothesis either posited that this hypothesis differs from visual aposematism or ignored the issue of aposematism. Interestingly, other authors that cited their papers considered the co-evolutionary hypothesis as visual aposematism. Recently, the overlap between the co-evolutionary hypothesis and visual aposematism was finally recognized, with the exception of yellow autumn leaves not signaling defense to aphids, which are known to be attracted to yellow leaves. However, the detailed relationships between these two hypotheses have not been discussed yet. Here I propose that the co-evolutionary hypothesis generally equals visual aposematism in red and yellow autumn leaves towards all herbivores except for yellow not operating with aphids. The co-evolutionary signaling extends beyond classic aposematism because it may operate later and not only immediately. The possibility that for yellow autumn leaves the co-evolutionary hypothesis may also operate via olfactory aposematism should not be dismissed.Key words: aposematic, autumn coloration, co-evolution, defense, evolution, herbivory, treesColorful (red and yellow) autumn leaves dominate large areas of America, Asia and Europe, expressed by thousands of tree, shrub and climber species.^1–5 In the last decade, this phenomenon received considerable scientific attention. For a long time it was a common belief that this coloration is the by-product of the cessation of masking by chlorophylls that degrade in autumn. However, two key theoretical and experimental developments stimulated the recent wave of study of autumn leaf coloration. The first was the recognition that anthocyanins are synthesized de novo in red autumn leaves,^1,2 and the second was the formulation of the anti-herbivory co-evolutionary hypothesis.^6–8The updated version of the co-evolutionary hypothesis⁹ posits that red autumn coloration signals to all types of insects (including aphids) that migrate to the trees in autumn about their chemical defense, lower nutritional quality or imminent leaf fall, or any other characteristic that would induce a lower fitness in the insects. In addition, yellow leaves signals the same to all herbivores except aphids. A special aspect of the co-evolutionary hypothesis is that the reduced fitness of the insects is not only immediate, reducing insect feeding in autumn, but also related to the reduced development of the next generation that hatches in the following spring from eggs laid on the trees in the autumn.⁹ Originally, the co-evolutionary hypothesis addressed both red and yellow autumn leaves.^6–8 However, with the later understanding that yellow leaves usually attract rather than repel aphids,^9–13 the co-evolutionary hypothesis was later restricted to red leaves when aphids are concerned.⁹In addition to other various potential anti-herbivory roles,^14,15 red autumn leaf coloration has several potential physiological functions, such as protection from photoinhibition and photo oxidation, and other physiological functions have been proposed but not agreed upon.^{1,2,9,16–21}     

v-Crk regulates membrane dynamics and Rac activation

Cell migration is an integrated process that involves cell adhesion, protrusion and contraction. We recently used CAS (Crk-associated substrate, 130CAS)-deficient mouse embryo fibroblasts (MEFs) to examined contribution made to v-Crk to that process via its interaction with Rac1. v-Crk, the oncogene product of avian sarcoma virus CT10, directly affects membrane ruffle formation and is associated with Rac1 activation, even in the absence of CAS, a major substrate for Crk. In CAS-deficient MEFs, cell spreading and lamellipodium dynamics are delayed; moreover, Rac activation is significantly reduced and it is no longer targeted to the membrane. However, expression of v-Crk by CAS-deficient MEFs increased cell spreading and active lamellipodium protrusion and retraction. v-Crk expression appears to induce Rac1 activation and its targeting to the membrane, which directly affects membrane dynamics and, in turn, cell migration. It thus appears that v-Crk/Rac1 signaling contributes to the regulation of membrane dynamics and cell migration, and that v-Crk is an effector molecule for Rac1 activation that regulates cell motility.Key words: v-Crk, Rac, lamellipodia dynamics, cell migration, p130CASCell migration is a central event in a wide array of biological and pathological processes, including embryonic development, inflammatory responses, angiogenesis, tissue repair and regeneration, cancer invasion and metastasis, osteoporosis and immune responses.^1,2 Although the molecular basis of cell migration has been studied extensively, the underlying mechanisms are still not fully understood. It is known that cell migration is an integrated process that involves formation of cell adhesions and/or cell polarization, membrane protrusion in the direction of migration (e.g., filopodium formation and lamellipodium extension), cell body contraction and tail detachment.^1–3 Formation of cell adhesions, including focal adhesions, fibrillar adhesions and podosomes are the first step in cell migration. Cell adhesions are stabilized by attachment to the extracellular matrix (ECM) mediated by integrin transmembrane receptors, which are also linked to various cytoplasmic proteins and the actin cytoskeleton, which provide the mechanical force necessary for migration.^2,4 The next steps in the process of cell migration are filopodium formation and lamellipodium extension. These are accompanied by actin polymerization and microtubule dynamics, which also contribute to the control of cell adhesion and migration.⁵Focal adhesions are highly dynamic structures that form at sites of membrane contact with the ECM and involve the activities of several cellular proteins, including vinculin, focal adhesion kinase (FAK), Src family kinase, paxillin, CAS (Crk-associated substrate, p130CAS) and Crk.⁶ A deficiency in focal adhesion protein is associated with the severe defects in cell motility and results in embryonic death. For example, FAK deficiency disrupts mesoderm development in mice and delays cell migration in vitro,⁷ which reflects impaired assembly and disassembly the focal adhesions.⁸ In addition, mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) lacking Src kinase showed a reduced rate of cell spreading that resulted in embryonic death.⁹ Taken together, these findings strongly support the idea that cell adhesion complexes play crucial roles in cell migration.CAS is a hyperphosphorylated protein known to be a major component of focal adhesion complexes and to be involved in the transformation of cells expressing v-Src or v-Crk.¹⁰ CAS-deficient mouse embryos die in utero and show marked systematic congestion and growth retardation,⁴ while MEFs lacking CAS show severely impaired formation and bundling of actin stress fibers and delayed cell motility.^4,11,12 Conversely, transient expression of CAS in COS7 cells increases cell migration.¹¹ Crk-null mice also exhibit lethal defects in embryonic development,¹³ which is consistent with the fact that CAS is a major substrate for v-Crk, and both CAS and v-Crk are necessary for induction of cell migration.¹⁴ v-Crk consists of a viral gag sequence fused to cellular Crk sequences, which contain Src homology 2 (SH2) and SH3 domains but no kinase domain, and both CAS and paxillin bind to SH2 domains.^12,15,16 Despite the absence of a kinase domain, cell expressing v-Crk show upregulation of tyrosine phosphorylation of CAS, FAK and paxillin, which is consistent with v-Crk functioning as an adaptor protein.¹⁷ Moreover, this upregulation of tyrosine phosphorylation correlates well with the transforming activity of v-Crk.¹⁷ By contrast, tyrosine phosphorylation of FAK and CAS is diminished in Src kinase-deficient cells expressing v-Crk, and they are not targeted to the membrane, suggesting v-Crk signaling is Src kinase-dependent. After formation of the CAS/v-Crk complex, v-Crk likely transduces cellular signaling to Src kinase and FAK.¹² Notably, tyrosine phosphorylation of FAK and cell migration and spreading are all enhanced when v-Crk is introduced into CAS-deficient MEFs.¹² We therefore suggest that v-Crk activity, but not cellular Crk activity, during cell migration and spreading is CAS-independent.Membrane dynamics such as lamellipodium protrusion and membrane ruffling reportedly involve Rac1,¹⁸ α4β1 integrin,¹⁹ Arp2/3,⁶ and N-WASP,²⁰ and are enhanced in v-Crk-expressing CAS-deficient MEFs.²¹ Moreover, expression in those cells of N17Rac1, a dominant defective Rac1 mutant, abolished membrane dynamics at early times and delayed cell migration.²¹ v-Crk-expressing, CAS-deficient MEFs transfected with N17Rac1 did not begin spreading until one hour after being plated on fibronectin, and blocking Rac activity suppressed both membrane dynamics and cell migration. We therefore suggest that v-Crk is involved in cell attachment and spreading, and that this process is mediated by Rac1 activation. In addition, v-Crk expression apparently restores lamellipodium formation and ruffle retraction in CAS-deficient MEFs. Thus v-Crk appears to participate in a variety cellular signaling pathways leading to cell spreading, Rac1 activation, membrane ruffling and cell migration, even in the absence of CAS, its major substrate protein.In fibroblasts, the Rho family of small GTP-binding proteins (e.g., Cdc42, Rac and Rho) functions to control actin cytoskeleton turnover, including filopodium extension, lamellipodium formation and generation of actin stress fibers and focal adhesions.²² These GTPases function in a cascade, such that activation of Cdc42 leads to activation of Rac1, which in turn activates Rho.²² Once activated, Rho controls cell migration. Cell adhesion to ECM leads to the translocation of Rac1 and Cdc42 from the cytosol to the plasma membrane,²³ where they regulate actin polymerization at the leading edge.^19,24 Dominant negative Rac and Cdc42 mutants inhibit the signaling to cell spreading initiated by the interaction of integrin with ECM.²⁴ The fact that cellular levels of activated Rac are higher in cells adhering to ECM than in suspended cells further suggests that activation of Rac and Cdc42 is a critical step leading to membrane protrusion and ruffle formation. It is noteworthy in this regard that v-Crk is able to induce Rac activation and its translocation to plasma membrane.²¹Overall, the findings summarized in this article demonstrate that v-Crk participates in several steps leading to cell adhesion and spreading (Fig. 1), and the targeting of v-Crk to focal adhesion sites appears to be a prerequisite for regulation of cell migration and spreading via Rac activation. To fully understand its function, however, it will be necessary to clarify the role of v-Crk in Rac1 and Cdc42 activation initiated by integrin-ECM interactions.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic diagram of v-Crk signaling in MEFs. Cell adhesion signaling initiated by the integrin-ECM interaction triggers v-Crk signaling mediated by Src kinase, after which focal adhesion proteins are tyrosine phosphorylated. These events lead to translocation of Rac from the cytosol to the membrane, where it promotes membrane protrusion and ruffle formation. Under basal conditions, Rac is bound with GDP and is inactive. Upon stimulation, Rac activation is mediated by guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs) that stimulate the release of bound GDP and the binding of GTP. Activation of Rac is transient, however, as it is inactivated by GTPase activating protein (GAP).     

Antagonistic roles of the N-terminal domain of prion protein to doppel

Prion protein (PrP)-like molecule, doppel (Dpl), is neurotoxic in mice, causing Purkinje cell degeneration. In contrast, PrP antagonizes Dpl in trans, rescuing mice from Purkinje cell death. We have previously shown that PrP with deletion of the N-terminal residues 23–88 failed to neutralize Dpl in mice, indicating that the N-terminal region, particularly that including residues 23–88, may have trans-protective activity against Dpl. Interestingly, PrP with deletion elongated to residues 121 or 134 in the N-terminal region was shown to be similarly neurotoxic to Dpl, indicating that the PrP C-terminal region may have toxicity which is normally prevented by the N-terminal domain in cis. We recently investigated further roles for the N-terminal region of PrP in antagonistic interactions with Dpl by producing three different types of transgenic mice. These mice expressed PrP with deletion of residues 25–50 or 51–90, or a fusion protein of the N-terminal region of PrP with Dpl. Here, we discuss a possible model for the antagonistic interaction between PrP and Dpl.Key words: prion protein, doppel, neurotoxic signal, neurodegeneration, neuroprotection, prion diseaseThe normal prion protein, termed PrP^C, is a membrane glycoprotein tethered to the outer cell surface via a glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI) anchor moiety.^1,2 It is ubiquitously expressed in neuronal and non-neuronal tissues, with highest expression in the central nervous system, particularly in neurons.³ The physiological function of PrP^C remains elusive. We and others have shown that PrP^C functionally antagonizes doppel (Dpl), a PrP-like GPI-anchored protein with ∼23% identity in amino acid composition to PrP, protecting Dpl-induced neurotoxicity in mice.^4–7 Dpl is encoded on Prnd located downstream of the PrP gene (Prnp) and expressed in the testis, heart, kidney and spleen of wild-type mice but not in the brain where PrP^C is actively expressed.^4,5,8 However, when ectopically expressed in brains, particularly in cerebellar Purkinje cells, Dpl exerts a neurotoxic activity, causing ataxia and Purkinje cell degeneration in Ngsk, Rcm0 and Zrch II lines of mice devoid of PrP^C (Prnp^0/0).^4,9,10 In these mice, Dpl was abnormally controlled by the upstream Prnp promoter.^4,5 This is due to targeted deletion of part of Prnp including a splicing acceptor of exon 3.¹¹ Pre-mRNA starting from the residual exon1/2 of Prnp was abnormally elongated until the end of Prnd and then intergenically spliced between the residual Prnp exons 1/2 and the Prnd coding exons.^4,5 As a result, Dpl was ectopically expressed under the control of the Prnp promoter in the brain, particularly in neurons including Purkinje cells.^4,5 In contrast, in other Prnp^0/0 lines, such as Zrch I and Npu, the splicing acceptor was intact, resulting in normal Purkinje cells without ectopic expression of Dpl in the brain.⁴The molecular mechanism of the antagonistic interaction between PrP^C and Dpl remains unknown. We recently showed that the N-terminal half of PrP^C includes elements that might mediate cis or trans protection against Dpl in mice, ameliorating Purkinje cell degeneration.¹² We also showed that the octapeptide repeat (OR) region in the N-terminal domain is dispensable for PrP^C to neutralize Dpl neurotoxicity in mice.¹² Here, possible molecular mechanisms for the antagonism between PrP^C and Dpl will be discussed.     

Activation of PKC-ε counteracts maturation and apoptosis of HL-60 myeloid leukemic cells in response to TNF family members

Protein kinase C (PKC)-ε, a component of the serine/threo-nine PKC family, has been shown to influence the survival and differentiation pathways of normal hematopoietic cells. Here, we have modulated the activity of PKC-ε with specific small molecule activator or inhibitor peptides. PKC-ε inhibitor and activator peptides showed modest effects on HL-60 maturation when added alone, but PKC-ε activator peptide significantly counteracted the pro-maturative activity of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α towards the monocytic/macrophagic lineage, as evaluated in terms of CD14 surface expression and morphological analyses. Moreover, while PKC-ε inhibitor peptide showed a reproducible increase of TNF-related apoptosis inducing ligand (TRAIL)-induced apoptosis, PKC-ε activator peptide potently counteracted the pro-apoptotic activity of TRAIL. Taken together, the anti-maturative and anti-apoptotic activities of PKC-ε envision a potentially important proleukemic role of this PKC family member.Key words: acute myeloid leukemia, surface antigens, HL-60 cells, apoptosis, maturation.Activation of all protein kinase C (PKC) family of serine and threonine isoenzymes is associated with binding to the negatively charged phospholipids, phosphatidylserine, while different PKC isozymes have varying sensitivities to Ca²⁺ and lipid-derived second messengers such as diacylglycerol (Gonelli et al., 2009). Upon activation, PKC isozymes translocate from the soluble to the particulate cell fraction, including cell membrane, nucleus and mitochondria (Gonelli et al., 2009). PKC primary sequence can be broadly separated into two domains: the N-terminal regulatory domain and the conserved C-terminal catalytic domain.The regulatory domain of PKC is composed of the C1 and C2 domains that mediate PKC interactions with second messengers, phospholipids, as well as inter and intramolecular protein-protein interactions. Differences in the order and number of copies of signaling domains, as well as sequence differences that affect binding affinities, result in the distinct activity of each PKC isozyme (Gonelli et al., 2009).In recent years, a series of peptides derived from PKC have been shown to modulate its activity by interfering with critical protein-protein interactions within PKC and between PKC and PKC-binding proteins (Brandman et al., 2007, Souroujon and Mochly-Rosen, 1998). Focusing on PKC-ε isozyme and using a rational approach, one C2-derived peptide that acts as an isozyme-selective activator (Dorn et al., 1999) and another that acts as a selective inhibitor (Johnson et al., 1996) of PKC-ε, have been identified.These findings are particularly interesting since besides being involved in the physiology of normal cardiac (Braun and Mochly-Rosen, 2003, Johnson et al., 1996, Li et al., 2006), hematopoietic (Gobbi et al., 2009, Mirandola et al., 2006, Racke et al., 2001), and neuronal (Borgatti et al., 1996) cell models, mounting experimental evidences have linked altered PKC-ε functions to solid tumor development (Okhrimenko et al., 2005, Gillespie et al., 2005, Lu et al., 2006). Therefore, taking advantage of the recent availability of small molecule peptides able to activate or inhibit specifically PKC-ε by disrupting protein/protein interactions (Dorn et al., 1999, Johnson et al., 1996), which open important therapeutic perspectives, we have investigated the effects of both PKC-ε activator and PKC-ε inhibitor peptides on the maturation and survival of leukemic cells, using as a model system the HL-60 myeloblastic leukemia cell line, which can be induced to undergo terminal differentiation or apoptotic cell death by a variety of chemical and biological agents (Breitman et al., 1980, Zauli et al., 1996).     

Novel protein-protein interaction family proteins involved in chloroplast movement response

To optimize photosynthetic activity, chloroplasts change their intracellular location in response to ambient light conditions; chloroplasts move toward low intensity light to maximize light capture and away from high intensity light to avoid photodamage. Although several proteins have been reported to be involved in chloroplast photorelocation movement response, any physical interaction among them was not found so far. We recently found a physical interaction between two plant-specific coiled-coil proteins, WEB1 (Weak Chloroplast Movement under Blue Light 1) and PMI2 (Plastid Movement Impaired 2), that were indentified to regulate chloroplast movement velocity. Since the both coiled-coil regions of WEB1 and PMI2 were classified into an uncharacterized protein family having DUF827 (DUF: Domain of Unknown Function) domain, it was the first report that DUF827 proteins could mediate protein-protein interaction. In this mini-review article, we discuss regarding molecular function of WEB1 and PMI2, and also define a novel protein family composed of WEB1, PMI2 and WEB1/PMI2-like proteins for protein-protein interaction in land plants.Key words: Arabidopsis, blue light, chloroplast velocity, coiled-coil region, organelle movement, phototropin, protein-protein interactionIntracellular locations of chloroplasts change in response to different light conditions to capture sunlight efficiently for energy production through photosynthesis. Chloroplasts move toward weak light to maximize light capture (the accumulation response),^1,2 and away from strong light to reduce photodamage (the avoidance response).³ In higher plants such as Arabidopsis thaliana, the responses are induced by blue light-dependent manner.^1,2 Recently, chloroplast actin (cp-actin) filaments were found to be involved in chloroplast photorelocation movement and positioning.^4,5 The cp-actin filaments are localized at the interface between the chloroplast and the plasma membrane to anchor the chloroplast to the plasma membrane, and are relocalized to the leading edge of chloroplasts before and during the movement.^4,5 The difference of cp-actin filament amounts between the front and the rear halves of chloroplasts determines the chloroplast movement velocity; as the difference increases, chloroplast velocity also increases.^4,5Several proteins have been reported to be involved in chloroplast movement. The blue light receptors, phototropin 1 (phot1) and phot2, mediate the accumulation response,⁶ and phot2 solely mediates the avoidance response.^7,8 Chloroplast Unusual Positioning 1 (CHUP1), Kinesin-like Protein for Actin-Based Chloroplast Movement 1 (KAC1) and KAC2 are involved in the cp-actin filament formation.^4,9–11 Other proteins with unknown molecular function involved in the chloroplast movement responses have also been reported. They are J-domain Protein Required for Chloroplast Accumulation Response 1 (JAC1),^12,13 Plastid Movement Impaired 1 (PMI1),¹⁴ a long coiled-coil protein Plastid Movement Impaired 2 (PMI2), a PMI2-homologous protein PMI15,¹⁵ and THRUMIN1.¹⁶Recently, we characterized two plant-specific coiled-coil proteins, Weak Chloroplast Movement under Blue Light 1 (WEB1) and PMI2, which regulate the velocity of chloroplast photorelocation movement.¹⁷ In this mini-review article, we discuss about molecular function of WEB1 and PMI2 in chloroplast photorelocation movement, and also define the WEB1/PMI2-related (WPR) protein family as a new protein family for protein-protein interaction.     

Protein interactors of acyl-CoA-binding protein ACBP2 mediate cadmium tolerance in Arabidopsis

In our recent paper in the Plant Journal, we reported that Arabidopsis thaliana lysophospholipase 2 (lysoPL2) binds acyl-CoA-binding protein 2 (ACBP2) to mediate cadmium [Cd(II)] tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis. ACBP2 contains ankyrin repeats that have been previously shown to mediate protein-protein interactions with an ethylene-responsive element binding protein (AtEBP) and a farnesylated protein 6 (AtFP6). Transgenic Arabidopsis ACBP2-overexpressors, lysoPL2-overexpressors and AtFP6-overexpressors all display enhanced Cd(II) tolerance, in comparison to wild type, suggesting that ACBP2 and its protein partners work together to mediate Cd(II) tolerance. Given that recombinant ACBP2 and AtFP6 can independently bind Cd(II) in vitro, they may be able to participate in Cd(II) translocation. The binding of recombinant ACBP2 to [¹⁴C]linoleoyl-CoA and [¹⁴C]linolenoyl-CoA implies its role in phospholipid repair. In conclusion, ACBP2 can mediate tolerance to Cd(II)-induced oxidative stress by interacting with two protein partners, AtFP6 and lysoPL2. Observations that ACBP2 also binds lysophosphatidylcholine (lysoPC) in vitro and that recombinant lysoPL2 degrades lysoPC, further confirm an interactive role for ACBP2 and lysoPL2 in overcoming Cd(II)-induced stress.Key words: acyl-CoA-binding protein, cadmium, hydrogen peroxide, lysophospholipase, oxidative stressAcyl-CoA-binding proteins (ACBP1 to ACBP6) are encoded by a multigene family in Arabidopsis thaliana.¹ These ACBP proteins are well studied in Arabidopsis in comparison to other organisms,^1–4 and are located in various subcellular compartments.¹ Plasma membranelocalized ACBP1 and ACBP2 contain ankyrin repeats that have been shown to function in protein-protein interactions.^5,6 ACBP1 and ACBP2 which share 76.9% amino acid identity also confer tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis to lead [Pb(II)] and Cd(II), respectively.^1,5,7 Since recombinant ACBP1 and ACBP2 bind linolenoyl-CoA and linoleoyl-CoA in vitro, they may possibly be involved in phospholipid repair in response to heavy metal stress at the plasma membrane.^5,7 In contrast, ACBP3 is an extracellularly-localized protein⁸ while ACBP4, ACBP5 and ACBP6 are localized to cytosol.^9,10 ACBP1 and ACBP6 have recently been shown to be involved in freezing stress.^9,11 ACBP4 and ACBP5 bind oleoyl-CoA ester and their mRNA expressions are lightregulated.^12,13 Besides acyl-CoA esters, some ACBPs also bind phospholipids.^9,11,13 To investigate the biological function of ACBP2, we have proceeded to establish its interactors at the ankyrin repeats, including AtFP6,⁵ AtEBP⁶ and now lysoPL2 in the Plant Journal paper. While the significance in the interaction of ACBP2 with AtEBP awaits further investigations, some parallels can be drawn between those of ACBP2 with AtFP6 and with lysoPL2.