Putting the brakes on cancer cell migration: JAM-A restrains integrin activation

Junctional Adhesion Molecule A (JAM-A) is a member of the Ig superfamily of membrane proteins expressed in platelets, leukocytes, endothelial cells and epithelial cells. We have previously shown that in endothelial cells, JAM-A regulates basic fibroblast growth factor, (FGF-2)-induced angiogenesis via augmenting endothelial cell migration. Recently, we have revealed that in breast cancer cells, downregulation of JAM-A enhances cancer cell migration and invasion. Further, ectopic expression of JAM-A in highly metastatic MDA-MB-231 cells attenuates cell migration, and downregulation of JAM-A in low-metastatic T47D cells enhance migration. Interestingly, JAM-A expression is greatly diminished as breast cancer disease progresses. The molecular mechanism of this function of JAM-A is beyond its well-characterized barrier function at the tight junction. Our results point out that JAM-A differentially regulates migration of endothelial and cancer cells.Key words: JAM-A, integrin, α_vβ₃, FGF-2, breast cancer, cell migration and invasion, T47D, MDA-MB-231, siRNAEndothelial and epithelial cells exhibit cell polarity and have characteristic tight junctions (TJs) that separate apical and basal surfaces. TJs are composed of both transmembrane and cytoplasmic proteins. The three major families of transmembrane proteins include claudins, occludin and JAM family members.^1–3 Additionally, interaction between the peripheral proteins such as PDS-95/Discs large/ZO family (PDZ) domain-containing proteins in TJs plays an important role in maintaining the junctional integrity.^2,4,5JAMs are type I membrane proteins (Fig. 1) predominately expressed in endothelial and epithelial cell TJs, platelets and some leukocytes.^6–8 The classical JAMs are JAM-A, JAM-B and JAM-C, which can all regulate leukocyte-endothelial cell interaction through their ability to undergo heterophilic binding with integrins α_Lβ₂ or α_vβ₃, α₄β₁ and α_Mβ₂ respectively. The cytoplasmic tail of JAMs contains a type II PDZ-domain-binding motif (Fig. 1) that can interact with the PDZ domain containing cytoplasmic molecules such as ZO-1, ASIP/PAR-3 or AF-6.^9,10 Additionally, consistant with their junctional localization and their tendency to be involved in homophilic interactions, JAMs have been shown to modulate paracellular permeability and thus may play an important role in regulating the epithelial and endothelial barrier.^11,12 In addition, ectopic expression of JAM-A in CHO cells promotes localization of ZO-1 and occludin at points of cell contacts, which suggests a role for JAM-A in TJ assembly.^10,13,14 Recently, it has been shown that JAM-A regulates epithelial cell morphology by modulating the activity of small GTPase Rap1 suggesting a role for JAM-A in intracellular signaling.¹⁵Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic representation of the domain structure of JAM family proteins. V, variable Ig domain; C2, constant type 2 Ig domain; TM, transmembrane domain; T-II, Type II PDZ-domain binding motif.We have previously shown that JAM-A is a positive regulator of fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2) induced angiogenesis.¹⁶ Evidence was provided to support the notion that JAM-A forms a complex with integrin α_vβ₃ at the cell-cell junction in quiescent human umbilical cord vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) and FGF-2 dissociates this complex.¹⁶ It was further established that inhibition of JAM-A using a function-blocking antibody also inhibits FGF-2 induced HUVECs migration in vitro and angiogenesis in vivo. Overexpression of JAM-A induced a change in HUVECs morphology similar to that observed when treated with FGF-2.¹⁷ Furthermore, overexpression of JAM-A, but not its cytoplasmic domain deletion mutant, augmented cell migration in the absence of FGF-2.¹⁷ In addition, downregulation of JAM-A in HUVECs using specific siRNA, resulted in reduced FGF-2-induced cell migration and inhibition of mitogen activated protein (MAP) kinase activation.¹⁸ These findings clearly suggested that JAM-A positively regulates FGF-2-induced endothelial cell migration. This was further confirmed in vivo by using JAM-A null mouse in which FGF-2 failed to support angiogenesis.¹⁹It is known that JAM-C, a JAM family member, is involved in the process of tumor cell metastasis.²⁰ However, little is known about JAM-A''s role in cancer progression. We recently found that JAM-A is expressed in breast cancer tissues and cell lines.²¹ Based on our studies with endothelial cells it was felt that JAM-A expression in breast cancer cells may also enhance the migratory ability of these cells. Surprisingly, we found an inverse relation between the expression of JAM-A and the metastatic ability of breast cancer cells. T47D cells, which express high levels of JAM-A, are the least migratory; whereas MDA-MB-231 cells, which are highly migratory, are found to express the least amount of JAM-A.²¹ We also found that overexpression of JAM-A in MDA-MB-231 cells caused a change in cell morphology from spindle-like to rounded shape and formed cobblestone-like clusters.²¹ This is consistent with the previous report, that downregulation of JAM-A expression from epithelial cells using siRNA results in the change of epithelial cell morphology.¹⁵ This change in cell morphology by knockdown of JAM-A was attributed to the disruption of epithelial cell barrier function.¹⁵ It was further shown that knockdown of JAM-A affects epithelial cell morphology through reduction of β₁integrin expression due to decreased Rap1 activity.¹⁵ Our observed effect of JAM-A downregulation in T47D cells, however, is not due to downregulation of β₁integrin, since the level of this integrin was not affected in these cells. Interestingly, overexpression of JAM-A significantly affected both the cell migration and invasion of MDA-MB-231 cells. Furthermore, knockdown of JAM-A using siRNA enhanced invasiveness of MDA-MB-231 cells, as well as T47D cells.²¹ The ability of JAM-A to attenuate cell invasion was found to be due to the formation of functional tight junctions as observed by distinct accumulation of JAM-A and ZO-1 at the TJs and increased transepithelial resistance. These results identify, for the first time, a tight junctional cell adhesion protein as a key negative regulator of breast cancer cell migration and invasion.²¹JAM-A has been shown to be important in maintaining TJ integrity.^15,22–25 Disruption of TJs has been implicated to play a role in cancer cell metastasis by inducing epithelial mesenchymal transition.²⁶ Several laboratories, including ours, have shown that cytokines and growth factors redistribute JAM-A from TJs.^16,27,28 Consistent with this finding, it has been shown that hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) disrupts TJs in human breast cancer cells and downregulates expression of several TJ proteins.²⁹ It is therefore conceivable that the loss of JAM-A in highly metastatic cells is a consequence of disruption of TJs. This was further supported by the findings that overexpression of JAM-A forms functional TJs in MDA-MB-231 cells and attenuates their migratory behavior. Our result is the first report correlating an inverse relationship of JAM-A expression in breast cancer cells to their invasive ability.²¹Using cDNA microarray technology, it has been revealed how genes involved in cell-cell adhesion, including those of the TJ, are under or overexpressed in different carcinomas.^15,30 Cell-cell adhesion molecules have been well documented to regulate cancer cell motility and invasion. Of these, the cadherin family have been studied the most.^31,32 It was proposed that a cadherin switch, that is, the loss of E-cadherin and subsequent expression of N-cadherin, may be responsible for breast cancer cell invasion.^33,34 Although the role of cadherins is well-documented, it remains controversial since some breast cancer cell lines that do not express these proteins still posses highly invasive characteristics.^33,34 However, the observed effect of overexpression of JAM-A does not appear to be simply due to the formation of TJs, since individual cells that express increased JAM-A show reduced migration.²¹ This is not surprising, considering the fact that JAM-A in addition to its function of regulating TJ integrity is also shown to participate in intracellular signaling. JAM-A is capable of interacting homotypically as well as heterotypically on the cell surface.^35,36 It has also been shown that it interacts with several cytoplasmic proteins through its PDZ domain-binding motif and recruits signaling proteins at the TJs.³⁷ Recent findings using site-directed mutagenesis suggest that cis-dimerization of JAM-A is necessary for it to carry out its biological functions.³⁸ Our own observations suggest that a JAM-A function-blocking antibody inhibits focal adhesion formation in endothelial cells (unpublished data), whereas overexpresion of JAM-A in MDA-MB-231 cells show increased and stable focal adhesions.²¹ It is therefore conceivable that in quiescent endothelial/epithelial cells JAM-A associates with integrin to form an inactive complex at the TJ (Fig. 2). Growth factors such as FGF-2 signaling dissociates this complex thus allowing dimerization of JAM-A and activation of integrin augmenting cell migration (Fig. 2). On the contrary, in MDA-MB-231 cancer cells, which express low levels of JAM-A and do not form tight junctions, there may not be efficient inactive complex formation between JAM-A and integrin. Overexpression of JAM-A in these cells however, may promote such inactive complex formation leading to inhibition of integrin activation and JAM-A dimerization, both necessary events for cell migration. We are currently in the process of determining the specificity of interaction of JAM-A with integrins. Further experimentation is ongoing to determine the contribution of JAM-A dependent signaling in cell migration.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Schematic representation of JAM-A regulation of cell migration. JAM-A forms an inactive complex with the integrin and sequesters it at the TJs. Growth factor signaling dissociates this complex, promoting integrin activation and JAM-A dimerization leading to cell migration via MAP kinase activation. Ectopic expression of JAM-A in cancer cells may induce its association with integrin, forming an inactive complex and hence attenuation of migration.JAM-A differentially regulates cell migration in endothelial and cancer cells due to its ability to form inactive complex with integrin, making it a metastasis suppressor. The downregulation of JAM-A in carcinoma cells may be detrimental to the survival of breast cancer patients. It is therefore very important to determine the molecular determinants that are responsible for the downregulation of JAM-A during cancer progression. Thus, JAM-A, a molecule that dictates breast cancer cell invasion, could be used as a prognostic marker for metastatic breast cancer.     

Cell Migration from Baby to Mother

Fetal cells migrate into the mother during pregnancy. Fetomaternal transfer probably occurs in all pregnancies and in humans the fetal cells can persist for decades. Microchimeric fetal cells are found in various maternal tissues and organs including blood, bone marrow, skin and liver. In mice, fetal cells have also been found in the brain. The fetal cells also appear to target sites of injury. Fetomaternal microchimerism may have important implications for the immune status of women, influencing autoimmunity and tolerance to transplants. Further understanding of the ability of fetal cells to cross both the placental and blood-brain barriers, to migrate into diverse tissues, and to differentiate into multiple cell types may also advance strategies for intravenous transplantation of stem cells for cytotherapeutic repair. Here we discuss hypotheses for how fetal cells cross the placental and blood-brain barriers and the persistence and distribution of fetal cells in the mother.Key Words: fetomaternal microchimerism, stem cells, progenitor cells, placental barrier, blood-brain barrier, adhesion, migrationMicrochimerism is the presence of a small population of genetically distinct and separately derived cells within an individual. This commonly occurs following transfusion or transplantation.^1–3 Microchimerism can also occur between mother and fetus. Small numbers of cells traffic across the placenta during pregnancy. This exchange occurs both from the fetus to the mother (fetomaternal)^4–7 and from the mother to the fetus.^8–10 Similar exchange may also occur between monochorionic twins in utero.^11–13 There is increasing evidence that fetomaternal microchimerism persists lifelong in many child-bearing women.^7,14 The significance of fetomaternal microchimerism remains unclear. It could be that fetomaternal microchimerism is an epiphenomenon of pregnancy. Alternatively, it could be a mechanism by which the fetus ensures maternal fitness in order to enhance its own chances of survival. In either case, the occurrence of pregnancy-acquired microchimerism in women may have implications for graft survival and autoimmunity. More detailed understanding of the biology of microchimeric fetal cells may also advance progress towards cytotherapeutic repair via intravenous transplantation of stem or progenitor cells.Trophoblasts were the first zygote-derived cell type found to cross into the mother. In 1893, Schmorl reported the appearance of trophoblasts in the maternal pulmonary vasculature.¹⁵ Later, trophoblasts were also observed in the maternal circulation.^16–20 Subsequently various other fetal cell types derived from fetal blood were also found in the maternal circulation.^21,22 These fetal cell types included lymphocytes,²³ erythroblasts or nucleated red blood cells,^24,25 haematopoietic progenitors^7,26,27 and putative mesenchymal progenitors.^14,28 While it has been suggested that small numbers of fetal cells traffic across the placenta in every human pregnancy,^29–31 trophoblast release does not appear to occur in all pregnancies.³² Likewise, in mice, fetal cells have also been reported in maternal blood.^33,34 In the mouse, fetomaternal transfer also appears to occur during all pregnancies.³⁵     

Why have chloroplasts developed a unique motility system?

Organelle movement in plants is dependent on actin filaments with most of the organelles being transported along the actin cables by class XI myosins. Although chloroplast movement is also actin filament-dependent, a potential role of myosin motors in this process is poorly understood. Interestingly, chloroplasts can move in any direction and change the direction within short time periods, suggesting that chloroplasts use the newly formed actin filaments rather than preexisting actin cables. Furthermore, the data on myosin gene knockouts and knockdowns in Arabidopsis and tobacco do not support myosins'' XI role in chloroplast movement. Our recent studies revealed that chloroplast movement and positioning are mediated by the short actin filaments localized at chloroplast periphery (cp-actin filaments) rather than cytoplasmic actin cables. The accumulation of cp-actin filaments depends on kinesin-like proteins, KAC1 and KAC2, as well as on a chloroplast outer membrane protein CHUP1. We propose that plants evolved a myosin XI-independent mechanism of the actin-based chloroplast movement that is distinct from the mechanism used by other organelles.Key words: actin, Arabidopsis, blue light, kinesin, myosin, organelle movement, phototropinOrganelle movement and positioning are pivotal aspects of the intracellular dynamics in most eukaryotes. Although plants are sessile organisms, their organelles are quickly repositioned in response to fluctuating environmental conditions and certain endogenous signals. By and large, plant organelle movements and positioning are dependent on actin filaments, although microtubules play certain accessory roles in organelle dynamics.^1,2 Actin inhibitors effectively retard the movements of mitochondria,^3–6 peroxisomes,^5,7–11 Golgi stacks,^12,13 endoplasmic reticulum (ER),^14,15 and nuclei.^16–18 These organelles are co-aligned and associated with actin filaments.^{5,7,8,10–12,15,18} Recent progress in this field started to reveal the molecular motility system responsible for the organelle transport in plants.¹⁹Chloroplast movement is among the most fascinating models of organelle movement in plants because it is precisely controlled by ambient light conditions.^20,21 Weak light induces chloroplast accumulation response so that chloroplasts can capture photosynthetic light efficiently (Fig. 1A). Strong light induces chloroplast avoidance response to escape from photodamage (Fig. 1B).²² The blue light-induced chloroplast movement is mediated by the blue light receptor phototropin (phot). In some cryptogam plants, the red light-induced chloroplast movement is regulated by a chimeric phytochrome/phototropin photoreceptor neochrome.^23–25 In a model plant Arabidopsis, phot1 and phot2 function redundantly to regulate the accumulation response,²⁶ whereas phot2 alone is essential for the avoidance response.^27,28 Several additional factors regulating chloroplast movement were identified by analyses of Arabidopsis mutants deficient in chloroplast photorelocation.^29–32 In particular, identification of CHUP1 (chloroplast unusual positioning 1) revealed the connection between chloroplasts and actin filaments at the molecular level.²⁹ CHUP1 is a chloroplast outer membrane protein capable of interacting with F-actin, G-actin and profilin in vitro.^29,33,34 The chup1 mutant plants are defective in both the chloroplast movement and chloroplast anchorage to the plasma membrane,^22,29,33 suggesting that CHUP1 plays an important role in linking chloroplasts to the plasma membrane through the actin filaments. However, how chloroplasts move using the actin filaments and whether chloroplast movement utilizes the actin-based motility system similar to other organelle movements remained to be determined.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic distribution patterns of chloroplasts in a palisade cell under different light conditions, weak (A) and strong (B) lights. Shown as a side view of mid-part of the cell and a top view with three different levels (i.e., top, middle and bottom of the cell). The cell was irradiated from the leaf surface shown as arrows. Weak light induces chloroplast accumulation response (A) and strong light induces the avoidance response (B).Here, we review the recent findings pointing to existence of a novel actin-based mechanisms for chloroplast movement and discuss the differences between the mechanism responsible for movement of chloroplasts and other organelles.     

Prions: En route from structural models to structures

The prion hypothesis^1–3 states that the prion and non-prion form of a protein differ only in their 3D conformation and that different strains of a prion differ by their 3D structure.^4,5 Recent technical developments have enabled solid-state NMR to address the atomic-resolution structures of full-length prions, and a first comparative study of two of them, HET-s and Ure2p, in fibrillar form, has recently appeared as a pair of companion papers.^6,7 Interestingly, the two structures are rather different: HET-s features an exceedingly well-ordered prion domain and a partially disordered globular domain. Ure2p in contrast features a very well ordered globular domain with a conserved fold, and—most probably—a partially ordered prion domain.⁶ For HET-s, the structure of the prion domain is characterized at atomic-resolution. For Ure2p, structure determination is under way, but the highly resolved spectra clearly show that information at atomic resolution should be achievable.Key words: prion, NMR, solid-state NMR, MAS, structure, Ure2p, HET-sDespite the large interest in the basic mechanisms of fibril formation and prion propagation, little is known about the molecular structure of prions at atomic resolution and the mechanism of propagation. Prions with related properties to the ones responsible for mammalian diseases were also discovered in yeast and funghi^8,9 which provide convenient model system for their studies. Prion proteins described include the mammalian prion protein PrP, Ure2p,¹⁰ Rnq1p,¹¹ Sup35,¹² Swi1,¹³ and Cyc8,¹⁴ from bakers yeast (S. cervisiae) and HET-s from the filamentous fungus P. anserina. The soluble non-prion form of the proteins characterized in vitro is a globular protein with an unfolded, dynamically disordered N- or C-terminal tail.^15–18 In the prion form, the proteins form fibrillar aggregates, in which the tail adopts a different conformation and is thought to be the dominant structural element for fibril formation.Fibrills are difficult to structurally characterize at atomic resolution, as X-ray diffraction and liquid-state NMR cannot be applied because of the non-crystallinity and the mass of the fibrils. Solid-state NMR, in contrast, is nowadays well suited for this purpose. The size of the monomer, between 230 and 685 amino-acid residues for the prions of Figure 1, and therefore the number of resonances in the spectrum—that used to be large for structure determination—is now becoming tractable by this method.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Prions identified today and characterized as consisting of a prion domain (blue) and a globular domain (red).Prion proteins characterized so far were found to be usually constituted of two domains, namely the prion domain and the globular domain (see Fig. 1). This architecture suggests a divide-and-conquer approach to structure determination, in which the globular and prion domain are investigated separately. In isolation, the latter, or fragments thereof, were found to form β-sheet rich structures (e.g., Ure2p(1-89),^6,19 Rnq1p(153-405)²⁰ and HET-s(218-289)²¹). The same conclusion was reached by investigating Sup35(1-254).²² All these fragements have been characterized as amyloids, which we define in the sense that a significant part of the protein is involved in a cross-beta motif.²³ An atomic resolution structure however is available presently only for the HET-s prion domain, and was obtained from solid-state NMR²⁴ (vide infra). It contains mainly β-sheets, which form a triangular hydrophobic core. While this cross-beta structure can be classified as an amyloid, its triangular shape does deviate significantly from amyloid-like structures of smaller peptides.²³Regarding the globular domains, structures have been determined by x-ray crystallography (Ure2p^25,26 and HET-s²⁷), as well as NMR (mammal prions^15,28–30). All reveal a protein fold rich in α-helices, and dimeric structures for the Ure2 and HET-s proteins. The Ure2p fold resembles that of the β-class glutathione S-transferases (GST), but lacks GST activity.²⁵It is a central question for the structural biology of prions if the divide-and-conquer approach imposed by limitations in current structural approaches is valid. Or in other words: can the assembly of full-length prions simply be derived from the sum of the two folds observed for the isolated domains?     

Regulation of cancer invasiveness by the physical extracellular matrix environment

Long-term clinical outcomes are dependent on whether carcinoma cells leave the primary tumor site and invade through adjacent tissue. Recent evidence links tissue rigidity to alterations in cancer cell phenotype and tumor progression. We found that rigid extracellular matrix (ECM) substrates promote invasiveness of tumor cells via increased activity of invadopodia, subcellular protrusions with associated ECM-degrading proteinases. Although the subcellular mechanism by which substrate rigidity promotes invadopodia function remains to be determined, force sensing does appear to occur through myosin-based contractility and the mechanosensing proteins FAK and p130^Cas. In addition to rigidity, a number of ECM characteristics may regulate the ability of cells to invade through tissues, including matrix density and crosslinking. 3-D biological hydrogels based on type I collagen and reconstituted basement membrane are commonly used to study invasive behavior; however, these models lack some of the tissue-specific properties found in vivo. Thus, new in vitro organotypic and synthetic polymer ECM substrate models will be useful to either mimic the properties of specific ECM microenvironments encountered by invading cancer cells or to manipulate ECM substrate properties and independently test the role of rigidity, integrin ligands, pore size and proteolytic activity in cancer invasion of various tissues.Key words: cancer, invasion, invadopodia, rigidity, mechanotransduction, microenvironmentIn multicellular organisms, cells must sense and respond to multiple cues for proper functioning within tissues. Although most experimental research has focused on the regulation of cellular processes by external chemical signals, there is increasing recognition that mechanical forces also regulate critical cellular functions. Indeed, rigidity of the extracellular environment has been shown to regulate such diverse processes as muscle cell differentiation, stem cell lineage fate, breast epithelial signaling and phenotype, and fibroblast motility.^1–5In breast cancer, accumulating evidence suggests a role for tissue rigidity in promoting both the formation and invasiveness of tumors. Mammographic density of breast tissue has been correlated with increased cancer risk and included in models to predict the likelihood of in situ and invasive breast cancers.⁶ Histologically, dense breast tissue has increased stromal collagen content and in vitro analyses have shown that cancerous breast tissue is much stiffer than normal tissue (as represented by values for the elastic or Young''s moduli).^3,7 In addition, experimentally increased expression of collagen fibrils in a mouse mammary model of spontaneous breast cancer was recently shown to promote tumor formation, invasion and metastasis.⁸ Therefore, both clinical and animal data suggest a correlation between tissue density and cancer aggressiveness, and mechanical factors appear likely to play a role in this process.⁹A well-established mechanism by which extracellular matrix (ECM) rigidity signals can drive phenotypic transformations is through mechano-signal transduction (mechanotransduction) pathways in which external forces are transmitted via integrin receptors at linear focal adhesion structures to cytoskeletal and signaling proteins inside the cell. Actomyosin contractility leads to stretching and activation of proteins such as talin, p130^Cas and potentially focal adhesion kinase (FAK).^10–12 For example, stem cell lineage was found to be dependent on formation of cellular focal adhesions and actomyosin contractility in response to substrate tensile properties.² Mammary epithelial cells grown on compliant matrices will differentiate and polarize to form lactating 3-D structures that resemble in vivo acini but fail to do so on stiff matrices due to increased cytoskeletal contractility.³ Activation of mechanotransduction molecules, such as FAK, Rho and ROCK, are required for the rigidity-induced phenotype changes.^3,5 Using polyacrylamide (PA) gel systems, Yu-li Wang''s group found that rigid substrates induce fibroblast and epithelial cells to migrate away from each other instead of aggregating to form tissue-like structures.¹³ This transformation in phenotype is characteristic of the epithelial to mesenchymal transition and thought to be crucial for tumor cell migration.¹⁴A critical feature of tumor aggressiveness is the ability to invade across tissue boundaries, through degradation of ECM. The subcellular structures responsible for this invasive activity are thought to be invadopodia: actin-rich, finger-like cellular protrusions that proteolytically degrade local ECM. These structures are characteristic of invasive cells and have been implicated in tumor cell metastasis due to their association with ECM degradation.¹⁵ Similar structures, podosomes, are formed in src-transformed cells, as well as normal cells such as osteoclasts and dendritic cells that need to degrade matrix and/or cross tissue boundaries.¹⁶ In addition to mediating ECM degradation, podosomes have been postulated to function as adhesion structures, since well-characterized adhesion proteins localize to podosomes and many podosome-expressing cells no longer express focal adhesions.¹⁷ Furthermore, podosomes have been shown to be essential for chemotactic motility and transendothelial migration, although not for chemokinetic motility.^18,19We recently found that ECM rigidity increases both the number and activity of invadopodia, and this effect was dependent on the cellular contractile machinery (Fig. 1A).²⁰ Consistent with a role for mechanotransduction in this process, we found localization of the active, phosphorylated forms of the mechanosensing proteins FAK and p130^Cas in actively degrading invadopodia and an increase in invadopodia-associated degradation in breast cancer cells overexpressing FAK and p130^Cas. These results suggest that in breast cancer, increases in tissue rigidity may directly lead to increased cellular invasiveness and tumor progression.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Potential rigidity sensing mechanisms by invadopodia. (A) Invadopodia are typically identified by colocalization of fluorescent antibodies for actin and cortactin at puncta that correspond to areas of ECM degradation visualized as dark regions in FITC-labeled fibronectin (Fn) overlaying gelatin. In this case, ECM was layered on top of either soft (storage modulus = 360 Pa) or hard (storage modulus = 3,300 Pa) polyacrylamide gels (PA) to determine if invadopodia activity was regulated by differences in mechanical properties. On hard PA, invasive MCF10ACA1d breast carcinoma cells produced more invadopodia and degraded more ECM than on soft PA. Yellow arrows indicate examples of invadopodia. (B) The localization of rings of the contractile protein myosin IIA (myoIIA) surrounding invadopodia (actin puncta) suggests a role for these structures in mechanosensing by potentially linking invadopodia with the contractile apparatus to detect differences in substrate rigidity. An example ring structure is indicated with a yellow arrow and shown in the zoomed portion of the myosin IIA image, and an example of no or weak localization of myosin IIA with an invadopodium is indicated with the red arrow. (C) Activated forms of FAK and p130^Cas localize to invadopodia and depend on cytoskeletal contractility.²⁰ Rings of myosin IIA also frequently surround invadopodia. These results suggest that invadopodia may act as mechanosensing organelles, either directly through localized mechanoresponsiveness at the invadopodia or through longer-range connections to neighboring or even distant focal adhesions. In either case, traction forces may be generated as a result of changes in cytoskeletal tension in response to ECM properties. Alternatively, invadopodia function could be regulated in the absence of local traction forces, secondary to distant intracellular signaling that leads to alterations in whole cell phenotypic changes. (A and B) are reprinted from Current Biology, Volume 18, Nelson R. Alexander, Kevin M. Branch, Aron Parekh, Emily S. Clark, Izuchukwu C. Iwueke, Scott A. Guelcher and Alissa M. Weaver, Extracellular Matrix Rigidity Promotes Invadopodia Activity, pp. 1295–9, 2008; with permission from Elsevier.The localization of phosphorylated FAK and p130^Cas at invadopodia and the requirement for actomyosin contractility in our study suggests that invadopodia have the potential to act as mechanosensing organelles. This concept is supported by our finding that ∼40% of breast cancer cells cultured on rigid substrates had rings of myosin IIA surrounding invadopodia (Fig. 1B)²⁰ and the recent finding that similar podosome structures can exert local traction forces.²¹ In addition, a few studies have implicated integrin activity in invadopodia function as well as localized β1 and β3 integrins to invadopodia.^22–25 However, whether invadopodia can serve as tension-generating adhesion structures is controversial, in part because of the presence of both focal adhesions and invadopodia in many cancer cells (Fig. 1C).Regulation of invadopodia and podosome function is also not straightforward. Although our data,²⁰ along with results from Collin et al.,²¹ suggests that mechanical tension promotes invadopodia and podosome activity, in some systems podosome formation is promoted by a loss rather than a gain of cytoskeletal tension. That is, local cytoskeletal relaxation has been shown to promote podosome formation coincident with focal adhesion dissolution in both vascular smooth muscle cells treated with phorbol ester²⁶ and neuroblastoma cells.²⁷ A yin-yang activity between focal adhesions and podosomes has been known for many years, whereby activation of src kinase leads to both disassembly of focal adhesions²⁸ and formation of podosomes.²⁹ However, the role of tension in this process is unclear, particularly since activation of src kinase occurs downstream of mechanical stimuli³⁰ and should promote podosome/invadopodia activity, yet loss of tension apparently induces biological activities dependent on src kinase (focal adhesion disassembly and podosome formation).^26,27 For invadopodia, the role of tension is even less clear. Basic characterization studies need to be performed to establish molecular and structural differences between invadopodia and focal adhesions and to measure force profiles at the two structures. Since invadopodia have much smaller diameters compared to podosomes (50–100 nm vs ∼1 µm, respectively),^15,16 the latter task of determining traction forces may be difficult due to resolution limitations in measuring potentially tiny substrate displacements. The standard identification of invadopodia, by association of actin-rich puncta with sites of degradation of fluorescent ECM, adds another technical limitation since the thickness and fluorescence of the ECM matrix used to identify proteolytic activity may hinder visualization of embedded fluorescent beads in the underlying PA gel (displacement of beads is typically used to calculate traction forces).³¹ Thus, an important future direction should be the development of new in vitro experimental systems that have manipulable substrate properties and allow simultaneous identification of subcellular forces and proteolytic activity.The cellular response to rigidity is often characterized using PA gels with tunable stiffness in the range spanning that of normal and cancerous breast tissue (elastic moduli = 100–10,000 Pa).^3,7 PA gels will likely continue to be invaluable tools for understanding cellular responses to rigidity. However, this system is inherently simple and cannot fully replicate cellular events occurring in a complex in vivo ECM microenvironment. Given that invading breast cancer cells are likely to experience different microenvironments as they cross through the basement membrane (BM) and into neighboring collagenous stromal tissue (Fig. 2), biological hydrogels such as reconstituted basement membrane (Matrigel) and type I collagen gels are often utilized to mimic these ECM substrates. However, both of these models lack many of the chemical, physical, and mechanical characteristics of tissues found in vivo and have been recently questioned as suitable models for studying cancer cell invasion.³² Type I collagen gels have a fibrillar architecture but a low density and high porosity³³ and frequently lack crosslinking sites.³⁴ Although Matrigel contains many of the biochemical components of the BM, it is tumor-derived³⁵ and the major component is laminin-1, which is only abundant in fetal tissues.³⁶ By contrast, the major component of normal BM is type IV collagen. In addition, Matrigel is a solubilized preparation that lacks crosslinks³⁷ and a fibrillar component.³⁸ Both sparse collagen gels and Matrigel are quite compliant with Young''s moduli of ∼1,000 and ∼200 Pa, respectively;³ therefore, without further manipulation these substrates lack the rigidity required to mimic tumor-associated ECM.Open in a separate windowFigure 2Navigation of basement membranes and stromal collagen by invading cancer cells. Invasive cancer cells are thought to navigate different tissue microenvironments in the process of invasion. In order for invasion to occur, tumor cells must first breach the basement membrane, a thin and highly crosslinked specialized ECM that requires proteolytic degradation for subsequent transmigration. Once past this barrier, cells must proceed through the neighboring stroma composed of collagenous connective tissue. The meshwork in the stroma is looser and may facilitate diverse migration modes dependent on local microenvironmental conditions and cellular cohesiveness. These modes of migration include a single cell, proteinase-independent amoeboidal phenotype (left) and single cell (middle) and collective (right) proteinase-dependent mesenchymal phenotypes that locally degrade matrix at enzymatically active invadopodia. Note the absence of collagen stroma surrounding and along the migration track of proteolytically active cells. New physiologically relevant models that mimic these interactions in vitro will be useful to elucidate mechanisms of cancer cell migration and invasion in various tissues.In order to invade neighboring stromal tissue, carcinoma cells must first breach the BM, a complex, interwoven meshwork composed of type IV collagen, laminin, nidogen/entactin, and various proteoglycans and glycoproteins.³² The highly ordered and crosslinked type IV collagen network is regarded as the limiting barrier to cancer cell invasion since it forms pores on the order of 100 nm that are too small for passage of cells without proteolytic degradation of the BM.³² In addition to degradation, decreased BM synthesis may contribute to the initial steps of cancer invasion by altering the balance between BM formation and remodeling.³⁹ Once cancer cells cross the BM, they encounter stromal collagen tissue. In tumors, this desmoplastic stroma is frequently fibrotic due to increased ECM deposition and crosslinking by carcinoma-associated fibroblasts.⁹ Although controversial, cancer cells are thought to use a nonproteolytic, amoeboid mode to traverse this connective tissue;⁴⁰ therefore, different modes of migration may be necessary to traverse BM or stromal collagenous matrices (Fig. 2). However, the amoeboid phenotype has been described using either sparse collagen gels without crosslinks⁴¹ or Matrigel.⁴² In vivo, the process of invading through tumor-associated stromal collagen is likely to depend on the pore size, the crosslinking status, and whether cells are migrating collectively or individually.^34,43In light of these concerns and many others, there has been a push for more physiologically relevant in vitro models that represent closer approximations of BM or stromal collagen tissue. Successful models, whether natural or synthetic, must be able to mimic the composition, architecture and mechanical properties of the in vivo environment as well as support cell culture in ex vivo conditions. Natural substrates can be produced by cultured cells, such as the epithelial basement membranes synthesized by MDCK cells.³⁷ Alternatively, organotypic models derived from biological specimens have recently been utilized to study invasion. These materials can be based on processed biological tissue, such as detergent-extracted mouse embryo sections,⁴⁴ homogenized involution matrix,³⁸ and decellularized human dermis,⁴⁵ or on native tissue such as chick chorioallantoic membrane⁴⁶ and explanted peritoneal or mammary tissue.^34,37 In addition, the field of tissue engineering has already provided novel hybrid scaffolds and advanced tissue culturing methods that can be utilized for cancer research.⁴⁷ Biological materials developed for clinical use in tissue reconstruction and regeneration, such as small intestinal submucosa and urinary bladder matrix, are attractive candidates as new in vitro models since they maintain their tissue-like properties and have been extensively characterized.^48,49 These tissue-derived scaffolds are composed of well-defined structural and functional proteins, originally produced by cells in vivo, and maintain their complex 3-D architecture. Thus, such materials can provide an environment that recapitulates the chemical, physical and mechanical properties found in vivo.⁴⁸ In addition, synthetic materials, such as poly(ethylene glycol)-based hydrogels, will likely play a large role in cancer research since they can be designed with defined chemistries to obtain appropriate physical and mechanical properties as well as specific spatial arrangements of biologically relevant moieties on relevant length scales.^33,50 Similarly, engineered adhesive microenvironments created with microfabrication techniques can also be utilized to probe molecular and cellular phenomena.⁵¹ Due to this flexibility in fabrication, these materials are good candidates for novel in vitro models to probe the effects of specific mechanical, topographical and chemical factors on cellular migration and invasion.In summary, the physical microenvironment is increasingly recognized as a major influence on cellular phenotype. Recent data emphasizes the importance of mechanical factors in tumor progression, including cellular invasiveness. Exciting future directions include understanding how stromal and BM environments affect cellular invasiveness at multiple scales, including subcellular and molecular regulation of ECM degradation in response to ECM rigidity and the role of proteinases in crossing diverse tissue barriers. The development of novel model systems with appropriate biological and physical properties will facilitate all of these goals.     

Myosin light chain kinases: Division of work in cell migration

Cell motility is a highly coordinated multistep process. Uncovering the mechanism of myosin II (MYO2) activation responsible for the contractility underlying cell protrusion and retraction provides clues on how these complementary activities are coordinated. Several protein kinases have been shown to activate MYO2 by phosphorylating the associated myosin light chain (MLC). Recent work suggests that these MLC kinases are strategically localized to various cellular regions during cell migration in a polarized manner. This localization of the kinases together with their specificity in MLC phosphorylation, their distinct enzymatic properties and the distribution of the myosin isoforms generate the specific contractile activities that separately promote the cell protrusion or retraction essential for cell motility.Key words: myosin, MLCK, ROK, MRCK, phosphorylation, cell migrationCell movement is a fundamental activity underlying many important biological events ranging from embryological development to immunological responses in the adult. A typical cell movement cycle entails polarization, membrane protrusion, formation of new adhesions, cell body translocation and finally rear retraction.¹ A precise temporal and spatial coordination of these separate steps that take place in different parts of the cell is important for rapid and efficient movement.²One major event during eukaryotic cell migration is the myosin II (MYO2)-mediated contraction that underlies cell protrusion, traction and retraction.^1,3 An emerging theme from collective findings is that there are distinct myosin contractile modules responsible for the different functions which are separately regulated by local myosin regulatory light chain (MLC) kinases. These kinases contribute to contractile forces that connect adhesion, protrusion and actin organization.² Unraveling the regulation of these contractile modules is therefore pivotal to a better understanding of the coordination mechanism.At the lamellipodium, the conventional calcium/calmodulin-dependent myosin light chain kinase (MLCK) has been shown to play an essential role in a Rac-dependent lamellipodial extension.⁴ Inhibition of calmodulin or MLCK activity by specific photoactivatable peptides in motile eosinophils effectively blocks lamellipodia extension and net movement.⁵ Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between activated MLCK and phosphorylated MLC within the lamellipodia of Ptk-2 cells as revealed by fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) analysis.⁶ More recent studies showed MLCK to regulate the formation of focal complexes during lamellipodia extension.^7,8 Functionally, MLCK is thought to play a critical role in the environment-sensing mechanism that serves to guide membrane protrusion. It mediates contraction that exerts tension on integrin-extracellular matrix (ECM) interaction, which, depending on the rigidity of the substratum, will lead to either stabilization of adhesion resulting in protrusion or destabilization of attachment seen as membrane ruffling on non-permissive surfaces.^8,9As a Rho effector, Rho-associated kinase (ROK/ROCK/Rho-kinase) has been shown to regulate stress fibers and focal adhesion formation by activating myosin, an effect that can be blocked by the specific ROK inhibitor Y-27632.^10,11 Myosin activation by ROK is the effect of two phosphorylation events: the direct phosphorylation on MLC and the inhibition of myosin phosphatase through phosphorylation of its associated myosin-binding subunit (MBS).¹¹ Consistent with this notion of a localization-function relationship, ROK and MBS, which can interact simultaneously with activated RhoA,¹¹ have been shown to colocalize on stress fibers.^12,13 In migrating cells, Rho and ROK activities have been mostly associated with the regulation of tail retraction, as inhibition of their activities often results in trailing tails due to the loss of contractility specifically confined to the cell rear.^14,15 Tail retraction requires high contractile forces to overcome the strong integrin-mediated adhesion established at the rear end, an event which coincides with the strategic accumulation of highly stable and contractile stress fibers that assemble at the posterior region of migrating cells.MRCK was previously shown to phosphorylate MLC and promote Cdc42-mediated cell protrusion.¹⁶ More recently, it was found to colocalize extensively with and regulate the dynamics of a specific actomyosin network located in the lamella and cell center, in a Cdc42-dependent manner but independent of MLCK and ROK.¹⁷ The lamellar actomyosin network physically overlaps with, but is biochemically distinct from the lamellipodial actin meshwork.^9,18 The former network consists of an array of filaments assembled in an arrangement parallel to the leading edge, undergoing continuous retrograde flow across the lamella, with their disassembly occurring at the border of the cell body zone sitting in a deeper region.^17–19 Retrograde flow of the lamellar network plays a significant role in cell migration as it is responsible for generating contractile forces that support sustained membrane protrusion and cell body advancement.^17–19It is therefore conceivable that these three known MLC kinases are regulated by different signaling mechanisms at different locations and on different actomyosin contractile modules. The coordination of the various modules will ensure persistent directional migration (Figure 1). Phosphorylation of MLC by PAK and ZIP kinase has also been reported, but their exact roles in this event have yet to be determined.^20,21 It is also noteworthy that individual kinases can work independently of each other, as amply shown by evidence from inhibitor treatments. This is particularly true for MRCK in the lamella, whose activity on lamellar actomyosin flow is not affected by ML7 and Y-27632, the inhibitors of MLCK and ROK respectively.¹⁷ These findings further indicate that although both ROK and MRCK have been shown to upregulate phosphorylated MLC levels by inhibiting the myosins phosphatases,^11,22 they are likely to act as genuine MLC kinases themselves, without the need of MLCK as previously suggested.¹¹Open in a separate windowFigure 1Upper panel depicts a model for the specific activation of the different MLC kinases at various locations in the cell. In response to upstream signals, MLC kinases MLCK, MRCK and ROK are activated and localized to different regions. In the case of MRCK and ROK, the interaction of the GTP-bound Rho GTPase binding domain will determine the specific action of the downstream kinase, resulting in actomyosin contractility at different locations. The coordination of these signalling events is crucial for directional cell migration. Lower panel shows a typical front-rear location for Myosin 2A and 2B in a migrating U2OS cell.In conjunction with their differences in localization, the three MLC kinases show apparent individual preferences and specificity towards the MYO2 isoforms that they associate with. The two major MYO2 isoforms MYO2A and 2B are known to have distinct intracellular distributions that are linked to their individual functions (Figure 1).^23,24 In motile cells, MYO2A localization that is skewed towards the protruding cell front is consistent with it being the major myosin 2 component of the lamellar filaments regulated by MRCK as well as its regulation by MLCK in lamellipodial contraction.^8,17,19 In contrast, the enrichment of MYO2B at retracting cell rear conforms well with the requirement of thick and stable stress fibers capable of causing tail contraction and prevention of protrusion under the control of Rho/ROK signaling.^23,25 The selection for MYO2B filaments in the cell rear stems from their more contractile and stable nature compared with MYO2A, a consequence of their higher time-averaged association with actin.^26,27 Conversely, the lower tension property of MYO2A filaments suggests that they are more dynamic in nature,^26,27 a characteristic which fits well with the dynamic actomyosin activities at the leading edge and lamella that regulate protrusion.It deserves special mention that the three MLC kinases display subtle differences in their specificity towards MLC. While MLCK and MRCK phosphorylate only a single Ser19 site (monophosphorylation),^18,28 ROK is able to act on both Thr18 and Ser19 residues causing diphosphorylation of MLC,²⁹ MLCK only causes diphosphorylation when present at higher concentrations.³⁰ By further increasing its actin-activated ATPase activity, diphosphorylation of MLC has been shown to induce a higher myosin activation and filament stability.^30–32 The use of specific antibodies that can differentiate between the two populations of phosphorylated MLC has been instrumental in revealing their localization and correlation with the activity of the MLC kinases. The emerging picture from these experiments is that mono and diphosphorylated MLC exhibit distinct distributions in migrating cells, with the monophosphorylated MLC localized more towards the protrusive region, while the diphosphorylated form is more enriched at the posterior end.^21,33 Taking into account their biochemical properties, the polarized distributions of these differentially phosphorylated MLC coincide functionally with the segregation of the MYO2 isoforms and their corresponding regulators. These findings provide further support for the existence of segregated contractile modules in migrating cell and their distinctive regulation.The mechanisms that determine the specific segregation of the contractile modules and their regulation are unclear. However, some clues have emerged from recent studies. It has been shown that the C-terminal coiled-coil region of MYO2B is important for determining its localization in cell rear²⁵ and which requires Rho/ROK activity as their inhibition resulted in the loss of this specific localization.²³ Correspondingly, the inhibition of MRCK activity resulted in the loss of lamella-localized MYO2A.¹⁷ These findings suggest that activation of MYO2 filaments by their upstream regulators is important for their functional segregation and maintenance. It is noteworthy that both ROK and MRCK have distinct regulatory domains including the pleckstrin homology domains which have been shown to be essential for their localization, a process which may involve myosin interaction and lipid-dependent targeting as has been respectively shown for ROK and MRCK.^11,13,16 Further, the specificity of MRCK for lamellar actomyosin is believed to be largely determined by the two proteins it forms a complex with: the adaptor LRAP35a, and the MYO2-related MYO18A. Activation of MYO18A by MRCK, a process bridged by LRAP35a, is a crucial step which facilitates MRCK regulation on lamellar MYO2A.¹⁷The mechanisms responsible for segregating the contractile modules and their regulators may also comprise a pathway that parallels the microtubule-modulatory Par6/aPKC/GSK3β signalling pathway which regulates cellular polarization. This notion is supported by both Cdc42 and Rho being common upstream regulators of these two pathways.³⁴ GTPase activation may determine the localized activities of the separate contractile modules and create an actomyosin-based asymmetry across the cell body, which together with the microtubule-based activities, result in the formation of a front-back axis important for directional movement. The involvement of MRCK in MTOC reorientation and nuclear translocation events,³⁵ and our unpublished observation that LRAP35a has a GSK3β-dependent microtubule stabilizing function are supportive of a possible cross-talk between these two pathways.In conclusion, the complex regulation of contractility in cell migration emphasizes the importance of the localization, specificity and enzymatic properties of the different MLC kinases and myosin isoforms involved. The initial excitement and confusion caused by the emergence of the different MLC kinases are fading, being now overtaken by the curiosity about how they cooperate and are coordinated while promoting cell motility.     

Tuba and N-WASP function cooperatively to position the central lumen during epithelial cyst morphogenesis

The process of epithelial lumenogenesis requires coordination of a network of signaling machinery communicated to each cell through subsequent cell divisions. Formation of a single hollow lumen has previously been shown to require Tuba, a Cdc42 GEF, for Cdc42 activation and correct spindle orientation. Using a Caco-2 model of lumenogenesis, we show that knockdown (KD) of the actin regulator N-WASP, causes a multilumen phenotype similar to Tuba KD. Defects in lumenogenesis in Tuba KD and N-WASP KD cells are observed at the two-cell stage with inappropriate marking of the pre-apical patch (PAP )—the precursor to lumen formation. Strikingly, both Tuba and N-WASP depend on each other for localization to the PAP. We conclude that N-WASP functions cooperatively with Tuba to facilitate lumenogenesis and this requires the polyproline region of N-WASP.Key words: lumen, N-WASP, tuba, E-cadherin, pre-apical patchMany epithelial tissues are organized as hollow tubes whose open lumina connect the body with its external environment.^1,2 These tubes consist of a monolayer of polarized cells that envelope the central lumen. Lumen formation is thus a key process in epithelial morphogenesis that depends upon cell polarity to establish three cell surface domains: a basal surface adherent to the extracellular matrix, a lateral surface between cells, and an apical surface that is exposed to the luminal fluids. Of note, the apical membrane is biochemically and morphologically distinct from the baso-lateral surfaces and effectively defines the luminal surface.^3,4For a lumen to form, cells must first mark the site at which apical membrane is to be inserted, something that is achieved at the first cell division.⁵ Targeted trafficking of apical membrane constituents defines a pre-apical patch (PAP), the precursor to the definitive lumen.⁵ Such insertion of apical membrane must presumably be coordinated with the assembly of apical junctions to segregate nascent apical from lateral membrane domains.² Subsequent cell divisions direct apical membrane and protein constituents to this point of initial apical membrane placement.⁶ Coordinated luminal positioning enables the initial formation of a single hollow lumen that subsequently expands through polarized fluid secretion to separate apical membranes, such as occurs in the embryonic gastrointestinal tract,⁷ or by apoptosis or autophagy of the central cells as is observed in mammary gland development.^8,9 Failure to establish initial luminal positioning causes defective lumenogenesis, often resulting in multiple, morphologically abnormal lumina.^5,6Crucial to lumenal morphogenesis is then the mechanism(s) that mark the site where the PAP will form. Cdc42 signaling is increasingly implicated in this process,^2,10 with downstream consequences that include control of mitotic spindle orientation,⁵ which itself influences PAP placement⁵ and potentially regulation of cell-cell junctions. Like other Rho family GTPases, the subcellular location of Cdc42 signaling is determined by the action of upstream proteins, notably guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs).^11,12 Of these, Tuba, a Cdc42-specific GEF,¹³ has emerged as a regulator of lumenal morphogenesis that controls PAP placement through mitotic spindle orientation.¹⁰Tuba is also a scaffolding protein¹³ capable of linking the actin assembly machinery with trafficking pathways. Not only is Tuba required for Cdc42 activation to direct spindle orientation,⁵ it also has the potential to interact with phosphoinositides that define the PAP.¹⁴ Additionally, Tuba binds directly to the actin regulator N-WASP, a key molecule in the organization of actin and itself a Cdc42 effector.¹⁵ Further, Tuba and N-WASP cooperate in various forms of actin-driven cellular motility, such as vesicle propulsion and cell invasive behavior.¹⁶ Interestingly, in epithelial cells N-WASP is also found at cadherin-based cell-cell junctions.¹⁷ In fact it has been proposed that N-WASP functions downstream of Tuba in the maintenance of epithelial junctional homeostasis as N-WASP overexpression was capable of rescuing a Tuba KD phenotype.¹⁸ Therefore, Tuba has the potential to play a central role in coordinating the molecular complexes required for productive polarization of epithelial cells and placement of the PAP during lumenogenesis. However, whether other protein interactions contribute to the morphogenetic impact of Tuba remain to be assessed.Three-dimensional cell culture systems are being utilized to identify critical components in lumen formation. In particular, Madin-Darby canine kidney cells (MDCK) and Caco-2 gastrointestinal cells are commonly used to study cyst and/or tubule formation. MDCK cells undergo both cyst and tubule growth, apoptosis being primarily responsible for the final step in lumen formation,¹⁹ while Caco-2 cells primarily utilize fluid influx to expand cysts.⁵ Cyst culture systems replicate aspects of in vivo organogenesis²⁰ providing tangible, powerful models to analyze and dissect the coordinated cellular mechanisms and processes that occur during epithelial morphogenesis.In this study we examined the relationship between Tuba and N-WASP in early epithelial lumenogenesis using Caco-2 three dimensional cyst cultures. Both Tuba and N-WASP RNAi cell lines result in mature cysts with multiple lumina, and at the two-cell stage, formed multiple PAPs. Interestingly, N-WASP KD perturbed Tuba localization at the PAP, however, N-WASP localization to the PAP was not affected to the same extent by Tuba KD. Taken together, these results suggest a complex interrelationship between Tuba and N-WASP for the coordinated formation of a single hollow lumen.     

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     

Protein Misfolding and the Serpinopathies

The serpins are the largest superfamily of protease inhibitors. They are found in almost all branches of life including viruses, prokaryotes and eukaryotes. They inhibit their target protease by a unique mechanism that involves a large conformational transition and the translocation of the enzyme from the upper to the lower pole of the protein. This complex mechanism, and the involvement of serpins in important biological regulatory processes, makes them prone to mutation-related diseases. For example the polymerization of mutant α₁-antitrypsin leads to the accumulation of ordered polymers within the endoplasmic reticulum of hepatocytes in association with cirrhosis. An identical process in the neuron specific serpin, neuroserpin, results in the accumulation of polymers in neurons and the dementia FENIB. In both cases there is a clear correlation between the molecular instability, the rate of polymer formation and the severity of disease. A similar process underlies the hepatic retention and plasma deficiency of antithrombin, C1 inhibitor, α₁-antichymotrypsin and heparin co-factor II. The common mechanism of polymerization has allowed us to group these conditions together as a novel class of disease, the serpinopathies.Key Words: serpins, α1-antitrypsin, neuroserpin, polymerization, dementia, conformational disease, serpinopathiesSerpins (or serine protease inhibitors) are the largest family of protease inhibitors. They have been found in all major branches of life including viruses, prokaryotes and eukaryotes.^1–3 Despite their name there is increasing evidence that serpins can also inhibit other classes of proteases as demonstrated by the viral serpin CrmA and recently by a plant serpin, serpin1.^4,5 They can even play a non-inhibitory role in events as diverse as blood pressure regulation (angiotensinogen), chromatin condensation (MENT), tumor progression (maspin), protein folding (hsp47) and hormone transport (cortisol and thyroxine binding globulin).⁶One of the most important roles of serpins is the regulation of enzymes involved in proteolytic cascades. Among these serpins are α₁-antitrypsin, α₁-antichymotrypsin, C1 inhibitor, antithrombin and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, which play an important role in the control of proteases involved in the inflammatory, complement, coagulation and fibrinolytic pathways, respectively.^1,3 The serpin superfamily is characterised by more than 30% homology with the archetypal serpin α₁-antitrypsin and conservation of tertiary structure.^7,8 Serpins adopt a metastable conformation composed in most cases of 9 α-helices, three β-sheet (A to C) and an exposed mobile reactive centre loop (RCL). This flexible RCL typically contains 20 residues that act as a pseudo substrate for the target protease (Fig. 1A).^9–15 After formation of a Michaelis complex^16,17 the enzyme cleaves the P1-P1′ bond of the serpin, releasing the P1'' residue and forming an ester bond between the protease and the serpin.^18,19 This is then followed by a dramatic conformational transition from a stressed to relaxed conformation with the enzyme being pulled from the upper to the lower pole of the serpin and the insertion of the reactive loop as an extra strand in β-sheet A.^20–25 As a consequence of this conformational change the thermal stability of the serpin is greatly enhanced. Whereas a typical serpin in its native state exhibits a midpoint of thermal denaturation of around 50–60°C, a cleaved serpin with its RCL fully incorporated into β-sheet A denatures at temperatures >120°C.^9,26,27 Another consequence is the inactivation of the enzyme, stabilised at the acyl-intermediate and unable to proceed further to deacylation of the complex.^24,28 This serpin-protease complex then binds to members of the lipoprotein receptor family and is cleared from the circulation.^29–31Open in a separate windowFigure 1Inhibition of neutrophil elastase by α₁-antitrypsin and the structural basis of polymerization. (A) After docking (left) the neutrophil elastase (grey) is inactivated by movement from the upper to the lower pole of the protein (right). This is associated with the insertion of the RCL (red) as an extra strand into β-sheet A (green). (B) The structure of α₁-antitrypsin is centred on β-sheet A (green) and the mobile reactive centre loop (red). Polymer formation results from the Z variant of α₁-antitrypsin (Glu342Lys at P17; indicated by arrow) or mutations in the shutter domain (blue circle) that open β-sheet A to favour partial loop insertion and the formation of an unstable intermediate (M*). The patent β-sheet A then accepts the loop of another molecule to form a dimer (D), which then extends into polymers (P). The individual molecules of α₁-antitrypsin within the polymer, although identical, are coloured red, yellow and blue for clarity. Figure reproduced with permission from Lomas et al.⁹⁷Despite the evolutionary advantage conferred upon serpins by the remarkable mobility of the native state, their complexity is also their weak point.^19,32 Mutations affecting the serpins can lead to a variety of diseases, resulting from either a gain or loss of function.^6,19 For example mutations can cause aberrant conformational transitions that result in the retention of the serpin within the cell of synthesis. This will lead to either protein overload and death of the cell in which the serpin is synthesised, or disease as a consequence of the resulting plasma deficiency. Such a mechanism underlies diseases as diverse as cirrhosis, thrombosis, angio-oedema, emphysema and dementia. We review here the common mechanism underlying these diseases that we have grouped together as the serpinopathies.^33–35 The aggregation and accumulation of conformationally destabilized proteins is an important feature of many neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer''s and Parkinson''s disease and the spongiform encephalopathies. Indeed we have used the serpinopathies as a paradigm for these other ‘conformational diseases’.³⁶     

Staying in the fold: The SGT1/chaperone machinery in maintenance and evolution of leucine-rich repeat proteins

The conserved eukaryotic protein SGT1 (suppressor of G₂ allele of skp1) participates in diverse physiological processes such as cell cycle progression in yeast, plant immunity against pathogens and plant hormone signalling. Recent genetic and biochemical studies suggest that SGT1 functions as a novel co-chaperone for cytosolic/nuclear HSP90 and HSP70 molecular chaperones in the folding and maturation of substrate proteins. Since proteins containing the leucine-rich repeat (LRR) protein-protein interaction motif are overrepresented in SGT1-dependent phenomena, we consider whether LRR-containing proteins are preferential substrates of an SGT1/HSP70/HSP90 complex. Such a chaperone organisation is reminiscent of the HOP/HSP70/HSP90 machinery which controls maturation and activation of glucocorticoid receptors in animals. Drawing on this parallel, we discuss the possible contribution of an SGT1-chaperone complex in the folding and maturation of LRR-containing proteins and its evolutionary consequences for the emergence of novel LRR interaction surfaces.Key words: heat shock protein, SGT1, co-chaperone, HSP90, HSP70, leucine-rich repeat, LRR, resistance, SCF, ubiquitinThe proper folding and maturation of proteins is essential for cell viability during de novo protein synthesis, translocation, complex assembly or under denaturing stress conditions. A complex machinery composed of molecular chaperones (heat-shock proteins, HSPs) and their modulators known as co-chaperones, catalyzes these protein folding events.^1,2 In animals, defects in the chaperone machinery is implicated in an increasing number of diseases such as cancers, susceptibility to viruses, neurodegenerative disease and cystic fibrosis, and thus it has become a major pharmacological target.^3,4 In plants, molecular genetic studies have identified chaperones and co-chaperones as components of various physiological responses and are now starting to yield important information on how chaperones work. Notably, processes in plant innate immunity rely on the HSP70 and HSP90^5–7 chaperones as well as two recently characterised co-chaperones, RAR1 (required for Mla12 resistance) and SGT1 (suppressor of G₂ allele of skp1).^8–11SGT1 is a highly conserved and essential co-chaperone in eukaryotes and is organized into three structural domains: a tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR), a CHORD/SGT1 (CS) and an SGT1-specific (SGS) domain (Fig. 1A). SGT1 is involved in a number of apparently unrelated physiological responses ranging from cell cycle progression and adenylyl cyclase activity in yeast to plant immunity against pathogens, heat shock tolerance and plant hormone (auxin and jasmonic acid) signalling.^7–9,12,13 Because the SGT1 TPR domain is able to interact with Skp1, SGT1 was initially believed to be a component of SCF (Skp1/Cullin/F-box) E3 ubiquitin ligases that are important for auxin/JA signalling in plants and cell cycle progression in yeast.^13,14 However, mutagenesis of SGT1 revealed that the TPR domain is dispensable for plant immunity and auxin signalling.¹⁵ Also, SGT1-Skp1 interaction was not observed in Arabidopsis.¹³ More relevant to SGT1 functions appear to be the CS and SGS domains.¹⁶ The former is necessary and sufficient for RAR1 and HSP90 binding. The latter is the most conserved of all SGT1 domains and the site of numerous disabling mutations.^14,16,17Open in a separate windowFigure 1Model for SGT1/chaperone complex functions in the folding of LRR-containing proteins. (A) The structural domains of SGT1, their sites of action (above) and respective binding partners (below) are shown. N- and C-termini are indicated. TPR, tetratricopeptide repeat; CS, CHORD/SGT1; SGS, SGT1-specific. (B) Conceptual analogy between steroid receptor folding by the HOP/chaperone machinery and LRR protein folding by the SGT1/chaperone machinery. LRR motifs are overrepresented in processes requiring SGT1 such as plant immune receptor signalling, yeast adenylyl cyclase activity and plant or yeast SCF (Skp1/Cullin/F-box) E3 ubiquitin ligase activities. (C) Opposite forces drive LRR evolution. Structure of LRRs 16 to 18 of the F-box auxin receptor TIR1 is displayed as an illustration of the LRR folds.³⁰ Leucine/isoleucine residues (side chain displayed in yellow) are under strong purifying selection and build the hydrophobic LRR backbone (Left). By contrast, solvent-exposed residues of the β-strands define a polymorphic and hydrophilic binding surface conferring substrate specificity to the LRR (Right) and are often under diversifying selection.We recently demonstrated that Arabidopsis SGT1 interacts stably through its SGS domain with cytosolic/nuclear HSP70 chaperones.⁷ The SGS domain was both necessary and sufficient for HSP70 binding and mutations affecting SGT1-HSP70 interaction compromised JA/auxin signalling and immune responses. An independent in vitro study also found interaction between human SGT1 and HSP70.¹⁸ The finding that SGT1 protein interacts directly with two chaperones (HSP90/70) and one co-chaperone (RAR1) reinforces the notion that SGT1 behaves as a co-chaperone, nucleating a larger chaperone complex that is essential for eukaryotic physiology. A future challenge will be to dissect the chaperone network at the molecular and subcellular levels. In plant cells, SGT1 localization appears to be highly dynamic with conditional nuclear localization⁷ and its association with HSP90 was recently shown to be modulated in vitro by RAR1.¹⁶A co-chaperone function suits SGT1 diverse physiological roles better than a specific contribution to SCF ubiquitin E3 ligases. Because SGT1 does not affect HSP90 ATPase activity, SGT1 was proposed rather as a scaffold protein.^16,19 In the light of our findings and earlier studies,²⁰ SGT1 is reminiscent of HOP (Hsp70/Hsp90 organizing protein) which links HSP90 and HSP70 activities and mediates optimal substrate channelling between the two chaperones (Fig. 1B).²¹ While the contribution of the HSP70/HOP/HSP90 to the maturation of glucocorticoid receptors is well established,²¹ direct substrates of an HSP70/SGT1/HSP90 complex remain elusive.It is interesting that SGT1 appears to share a functional link with leucine-rich repeat- (LRR) containing proteins although LRR domains are not so widespread in eukaryotes. For example, plant SGT1 affects the activities of the SCF^TIR1 and SCF^COI1 E3 ligase complexes whose F-box proteins contain LRRs.¹³ Moreover, plant intracellular immune receptors comprise a large group of LRR proteins that recruit SGT1.^8,9 LRRs are also found in yeast adenylyl cyclase Cyr1p and the F-box protein Grr1p which is required for SGT1-dependent cyclin destruction during G₁/S transition.^12,14 Yeast 2-hybrid interaction assays also revealed that yeast and plant SGT1 tend to associate directly or indirectly with LRR proteins.^12,22,23 We speculate that SGT1 bridges the HSP90-HSC70 chaperone machinery with LRR proteins during complex maturation and/or activation. The only other structural motif linked to SGT1 are WD40 domains found in yeast Cdc4p F-box protein and SGT1 interactors identified in yeast two-hybrid screens.¹²What mechanisms underlie a preferential SGT1-LRR interaction? HSP70/SGT1/HSP90 may have co-evolved to assist specifically in folding and maturation of LRR proteins. Alternatively, LRR structures may have an intrinsically greater need for chaperoning activity to fold compared to other motifs. These two scenarios are not mutually exclusive. The LRR domain contains multiple 20 to 29 amino acid repeats, forming an α/β horseshoe fold.²⁴ Each repeat is rich in hydrophobic leucine/isoleucine residues which are buried inside the structure and form the structural backbone of the motif (Fig. 1C, left). Such residues are under strong purifying selection to preserve structure. These hydrophobic residues would render the LRR a possible HSP70 substrate.²⁵ By contrast, hydrophilic solvent- exposed residues of the β strands build a surface which confers ligand recognition specificity of the LRRs (Fig. 1C). In many plant immune receptors for instance, these residues are under diversifying selection that is likely to favour the emergence of novel pathogen recognition specificities in response to pathogen evolution.²⁶ The LRR domain of such a protein has to survive such antagonist selection forces and yet remain functional. Under strong selection pressure, LRR proteins might need to accommodate less stable LRRs because their recognition specificities are advantageous. This could be the point at which LRRs benefit most from a chaperoning machinery such as the HSP90/SGT1/HSP70 complex. This picture is reminiscent of the genetic buffering that HSP90 exerts on many traits to mask mutations that would normally be deleterious to protein folding and/or function, as revealed in Drosophila and Arabidopsis.²⁷ It will be interesting to test whether the HSP90/SGT1/HSP70 complex acts as a buffer for genetic variation, favouring the emergence of novel LRR recognition surfaces in, for example, highly co-evolved plant-pathogen interactions.^28,29     

Matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) and TGFβ1-stimulated cell migration in skin and cornea wound healing

Cell migration during wound healing is a complex process that involves the expression of a number of growth factors and cytokines. One of these factors, transforming growth factor-beta (TGFβ) controls many aspects of normal and pathological cell behavior. It induces migration of keratinocytes in wounded skin and of epithelial cells in damaged cornea. Furthermore, this TGFβ-induced cell migration is correlated with the production of components of the extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins and expression of integrins and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs). MMP digests ECMs and integrins during cell migration, but the mechanisms regulating their expression and the consequences of their induction remain unclear. It has been suggested that MMP-14 activates cellular signaling processes involved in the expression of MMPs and other molecules associated with cell migration. Because of the manifold effects of MMP-14, it is important to understand the roles of MMP-14 not only the cleavage of ECM but also in the activation of signaling pathways.Key words: wound healing, migration, matrix metalloproteinase, transforming growth factor, skin, corneaWound healing is a well-ordered but complex process involving many cellular activities including inflammation, growth factor or cytokine secretion, cell migration and proliferation. Migration of skin keratinocytes and corneal epithelial cells requires the coordinated expression of various growth factors such as platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF), transforming growth factor (TGF), keratinocyte growth factor (KGF), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), insulin-like growth factor (IGF), epidermal growth factor (EGF), small GTPases, and macrophage stimulating protein (reviewed in refs. ¹ and ²). The epithelial cells in turn regulate the expression of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins and integrins during cell migration.^1,3,4 TGF-β is a well-known cytokine involved in processes such as cell growth inhibition, embryogenesis, morphogenesis, tumorigenesis, differentiation, wound healing, senescence and apoptosis (reviewed in refs. ⁵ and ⁶). It is also one of the most important cytokines responsible for promoting the migration of skin keratinocytes and corneal epithelial cells.^3,6,7TGFβ has two quite different effects on skin keratinocytes: it suppresses their multiplication and promotes their migration. The TGFβ-induced cell growth inhibition is usually mediated by Smad signaling, which upregulates expression of the cell cycle inhibitor p21^WAF1/Cip1 or p12^CDK2-AP1 in HaCaT skin keratinocyte cells and human primary foreskin keratinocytes.^8,9 Keratinocyte migration in wounded skin is associated with strong expression of TGFβ and MMPs,¹ and TGFβ stimulates the migration of manually scratched wounded HaCaT cells.¹⁰ TGFβ also induces cell migration and inhibits proliferation of injured corneal epithelial cells, whereas it stimulates proliferation of normal corneal epithelial cells via effects on the MAPK family and Smad signaling.^2,7 Indeed, skin keratinocytes and corneal epithelial cells display the same two physiological responses to TGFβ during wound healing; cell migration and growth inhibition. However as mentioned above, TGFβ has a different effect on normal cells. For example, it induces the epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) of normal mammary cells and lens epithelial cells.^11,12 It also promotes the differentiation of corneal epithelial cells, and induces the fibrosis of various tissues.^2,6The MMPs are a family of structurally related zinc-dependent endopeptidases that are secreted into the extracellular environment.¹³ Members of the MMP family have been classified into gelatinases, stromelysins, collagenases and membrane type-MMPs (MT-MMPs) depending on their substrate specificity and structural properties. Like TGFβ, MMPs influence normal physiological processes including wound healing, tissue remodeling, angiogenesis and embryonic development, as well as pathological conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, atherosclerosis and tumor invasion.^13,14The expression patterns of MMPs during skin and cornea wound healing are well studied. In rats, MMP-2, -3, -9, -11, -13 and -14 are expressed,¹⁵ and in mice, MMP-1, -2, -3, -9, -10 and -14 are expressed during skin wound healing.¹ MMP-1, -3, -7 and -12 are increased in corneal epithelial cells during Wnt 7a-induced rat cornea wound healing.¹⁶ Wound repair after excimer laser keratectomy is characterized by increased expression of MMP-1, -2, -3 and -9 in the rabbit cornea, and MMP-2, -9 in the rat cornea.^17,18 The expression of MMP-2 and -9 during skin keratinocyte and corneal epithelial cell migration has been the most thoroughly investigated, and it has been shown that their expression generally depends on the activity of MMP-14. MMP-14 (MT1-MMP) is constitutively anchored to the cell membrane; it activates other MMPs such as MMP-2, and also cleaves various types of ECM molecules including collagens, laminins, fibronectin as well as its ligands, the integrins.¹³ The latent forms of some cytokines are also cleaved and activated by MMP-14.¹⁹ Overexpression of MMP-14 protein was found to stimulate HT1080 human fibrosarcoma cell migration.²⁰ In contrast, the attenuation of MMP-14 expression using siRNA method decreased fibroblast invasiveness,²¹ angiogenesis of human microvascular endothelial cells,²² and human skin keratinocyte migration.¹⁰ The latter effect was shown to result from lowering MMP-9 expression. Other studies have shown that EGF has a critical role in MMP-9 expression during keratinocyte tumorigenesis and migration.^23,24 On the other hand, TGFβ modulates MMP-9 production through the Ras/MAPK pathway in transformed mouse keratinocytes and NFκB induces cell migration by binding to the MMP-9 promoter in human skin primary cultures.^25,26 Enhanced levels of pro-MMP-9 and active MMP-9 have also been noted in scratched corneal epithelia of diabetic rats.²⁷There is evidence that MMP-14 activates a number of intracellular signaling pathways including the MAPK family pathway, focal adhesion kinase (FAK), Src family, Rac and CD44, during cell migration and tumor invasion.^19,20,28 In COS-7 cells, ERK activation is stimulated by overexpression of MMP-14 and is essential for cell migration.²⁹ These observations all indicate that MMP-14 plays an important role in cell migration, not only by regulating the activity or expression of downstream MMPs but also by processing and activating migration-associated molecules such as integrins, ECMs and a variety of intracellular signaling pathays.³⁰Cell migration during wound healing is a remarkably complex phenomenon. TGFβ is just one small component of the overall process of wound healing and yet it triggers a multitude of reactions needed for cell migration. It is important to know what kinds of molecules are expressed when cell migration is initiated, but it is equally important to investigate the roles of these molecules and how their expression is regulated. Despite the availability of some information about how MMPs and signaling molecules can influence each other, much remains to be discovered in this area. It will be especially important to clarify how MMP-14 influences other signaling pathways since its role in cell migration is not restricted to digesting ECM molecules but also includes direct or indirect activation of cellular signaling pathways.     

The pulling,pushing and fusing of lens fibers: A role for Rho GTPases

Lens development and differentiation are intricate and complex processes characterized by distinct molecular and morphological changes. The growth of a transparent lens involves proliferation of the epithelial cells and their subsequent differentiation into secondary fiber cells. Prior to differentiation, epithelial cells at the lens equator exit from the cell cycle and elongate into long, ribbon-like cells. Fiber cell elongation takes place bidirectionally as fiber tips migrate both anteriorly and posteriorly along the apical surface of the epithelium and inner surface of the capsule, respectively. The differentiating fiber cells move inward from the periphery to the center of the lens on a continuous basis as the lens grows throughout life. Finally, when fiber cells reach the center or suture line, their basal and apical tips detach from the epithelium and capsule, respectively, and interlock with cells from the opposite direction of the lens and form the suture line. Further, symmetric packing of fiber cells and degradation of most of the cellular organelle during fiber cell terminal differentiation are crucial for lens transparency. These sequential events are presumed to depend on cytoskeletal dynamics and cell adhesive interactions; however, our knowledge of regulation of lens fiber cell cytosketal reorganization, cell adhesive interactions and mechanotransduction, and their role in lens morphogenesis and function is limited at present. Recent biochemical and molecular studies have targeted cytoskeletal signaling proteins, including Rho GTPases, Abl kinase interacting proteins, cell adhesion molecules, myosin II, Src kinase and phosphoinositide 3-kinase in the developing chicken and mouse lens and characterized components of the fiber cell basal membrane complex. These studies have begun to unravel the vital role of cytoskeletal proteins and their regulatory pathways in control of lens morphogenesis, fiber cell elongation, migration, differentiation, survival and mechanical properties.Key words: lens, fiber cells, elongation, migration, adhesion, Rho GTPasesLens morphogenesis involves a complex network of regulatory genes and interplay between growth factor, mitogenic, cell adhesive and cytoskeletal signaling pathways. The lens originates from surface ectoderm near the optic vesicle and lens vesicle that is formed via invagination of lens placode differentiates into primary fibers (the posterior half ) and epithelial cells (the anterior half ). These changes in embryonic cells control the lens distinctive anterior-posterior polarity. Subsequently, the lens grows through the proliferation of epithelial cells and the differentiation of their progeny into secondary fiber cells.^1,2 The continuous addition of new fiber cells at the lens periphery leads to a gradual inward movement of older cells to the center of the lens. The ectodermal basement membrane that surrounds the lens vesicle thickens to form the lens capsule and is composed of mainly proteins of extracellular matrix.^2,3 Since the lens does not shed cells, they are retained throughout the lens''s life and are packed symmetrically within the lens⁴ (Fig. 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Diagram of organization of lens epithelial and differentiating fiber cells. The lens is enclosed by a thick capsule consisting of various extracellular matrix proteins. Lens epithelial cells at the equator divide and exit from the cell cycle, and as they exit from the cell cycle, they start to elongate bidirectionally by making apical (AMC) and basal (BMC) membrane complexes with epithelium and capsule, respectively. As fiber cells elongate, they are pushed down and migrate toward the center. As the fiber cells migrate toward the center, both the basal and apical membrane complexes are expected to undergo changes in a regulated manner to control fiber cell adhesive, protrusive and contractile activity. Finally, when the fiber cells reach the center or suture line, their basal and apical ends detach from the epithelium and capsule, respectively and interlock with cells from the opposite direction of the lens and form suture. During fiber cell elongation and differentiation, cell adhesive interactions are reorganized extensively, and terminally differentiated fiber cells exhibit loss of cellular organelle and extensive membrane remodeling with unique ball and socket interdigitations. Arrows indicate the direction of fiber cell movement. This schematic is a modified version of Figure 2 from Lovicu and McAvoy.¹Lens fiber cell elongation and differentiation is associated with a remarkable change in cell morphology, with the length of fiber cells increasing on the order of several hundredfold. These morphological changes are associated with extensive membrane and cortical cytoskeletal remodeling, actomyosin reorganization and cell adhesion turnover.^5–17 Additionally, the tips of the elongating fiber cells at both the anterior and posterior terminals slide along the lens epithelium and capsule, respectively, as these cells migrate inward, and finally detach at the suture, where they form contacts with their counterparts from the opposite side of the lens.^4,12 These cell movements are fundamental for maintaining distinct lens fiber cell polarity and are temporally and spatially regulated as the lens grows continuously throughout life.^1,2,12 Another unique feature of the lens is that during fiber cell terminal differentiation, all the cellular organelles, including nuclei, endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria, are degraded in a programmed manner.¹⁸ It has been well documented that lens epithelial cell elongation and differentiation is associated with reorganization of actin cytoskeleton, increased ratio of G-actin to F-actin, integrin switching, formation of N-cadherin linked cell adhesions, and expression of actin capping protein tropomodulin.^{5,6,9,10,13,15,17,19–21} Importantly, disruption of actin cytoskeletal organization has been shown to impair lens epithelial differentiation and induce cataract formation, indicating the significance of actin cytoskeleton in lens differentiation and maintenance of lens optical quality.^14,22 Further, during accommodation, lens shape is changed in a reversible manner. Therefore, the tensional homeostasis between actomyosin inside the fiber cell and fiber cell adhesion on the inner side of the lens capsule is considered to be crucial for accommodation.¹²In the developing mouse and chicken lens, the tips of the fiber cells (both apical and basal) have been reported to cluster with different cytoskeletal proteins, including actin, myosin II, actin capping protein tropomodulin, and N-cadherins.^10,19,21 Similarly, adhesion regulating signaling molecules including integrins, focal adhesion kinase, Cdk5, abl kinase interacting protein (Abi-2), and Rho GTPases have been shown to localize to the fiber cell apical and basal tips.^20,23–26 Moreover, isolation and characterization of the fiber cell basal membrane complexes (BMCs) had revealed a symmetric organization of N-cadherin, myosin II, actin in association with myosin light chain kinase, focal adhesion kinase, β1 integrin and caldesmon.¹² The signaling activity, tensional property and dynamics of BMCs are thought to control the coordinated migration of fiber cells along the lens capsule, formation of lens suture line, and lens accommodation.¹² Additionally, the BMCs have been shown to undergo a characteristic regional rearrangement (including size and shape) during lens elongation and migration along the lens capsule.²⁷ Therefore, impaired fiber cell migration on the lens capsule is expected to induce cataractogenesis.²⁷ Taken together, these different observations convincingly indicate the importance of cytoskeleton and cell adhesion regulatory mechanisms in lens fiber cell elongation and migration.Although important insights have emerged regarding external cues controlling lens epithelial cell proliferation, elongation and differentiation, little is known regarding the specific signaling pathways that drive the processes culminating in fiber cell formation, migration, packing and maturation.^1,7,28 For example, growth factors are known to play key roles in influencing cell fates during development. Some of the major growth factor families, including FGFs and TGFβ/BMPs, have been shown to be involved in the regulation of lens developmental processes and primary fiber cell differentiation via ERK kinase activation.^1,28,29 However, the identity and role of signaling pathways acting downstream to growth factors regulating lens secondary fiber cell elongation, migration, adhesion, membrane remodeling and survival are poorly understood.^1,12,21,30 In particular, regulatory mechanisms involved in cytoskeletal reorganization, tensional force and cell adhesive interactions during these cellular processes have yet be identified and characterized.^{7,9,12,21,30–32}Our laboratory has been working on a broad hypothesis that the actin cytoskeletal and cell adhesive signaling mechanisms composed of Rho GTPases (Rho, Rac and Cdc42) and their effector molecules play a critical role in controlling lens growth and differentiation, and in maintaining lens integrity.⁷ The Rho family of small GTPases regulates morphogenesis, polarity, migration and cell adhesion.³³ These proteins bind GTP, exhibit GTPase activity, and cycle between an inactive GDP-bound form and an active GTP-bound form. This cycling is regulated by three groups of proteins: guanine-nucleotide exchange factors, which facilitate the exchange of GDP for GTP, thus rendering Rho GTPases active; GTPase-activating proteins, which regulate the inactivation of Rho by accelerating intrinsic GTPase activity and converting Rho GTPases back to their GDP-bound form; and GDP dissociation inhibitors (GDIs), which inhibit the dissociation of GDP bound to Rho GTPases.^33,34 The GTP-bound form of the Rho GTPases interact with downstream effectors, which include protein kinases (e.g., ROCK and PAK), regulators of actin polymerization (e.g., N-WASP/WAVE, PI3-kinase and mDia), and other proteins with adaptor functions.³³ The selective interaction of the different Rho GTPases with a variety of effectors determines the final outcome of their activation.³³ For example, during cell movement, Rac and Cdc42 stimulate formation of protrusions at the leading edges of cells, and RhoA induces retraction at the tail ends of cells. This coordinated cytoskeletal reorganization permits cells to move toward a target.³⁵ PI3-kinase and PI (3, 4, 5) P3 have also been widely implicated in controlling cell migration and polarity in a Rac GTPase-dependent manner.³⁵ Members of the Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome protein (WASP) and WASP-family verprolin homologous protein (WAVE) families serve to link Rho GTPases signals to the ARP2/3 complex, leading to actin polymerization that is crucial for the reorganization of the actin cytoskeleton at the leading edge for processes such as cell movement and protrusions.³⁶ Importantly, all three Rho GTPases also regulate microtubule polymerization and assembly of adherens junctions to influence polarity and cell adhesion, respectively.^33,37Likewise, a tensional balance between cell adhesion on the outside and myosin II-based contractility on the inside of the cells is regulated by Rho GTPases.³⁸To explore the role of the Rho GTPases in lens morphogenesis and differentiation, we have targeted the lens Rho GTPases by overexpressing either the C3 exoenzyme (inactivator of RhoA and RhoB) or RhoGDIα (Rho GDP dissociation inhibitor) in a lens-specific manner in transgenic mice and followed their effects developmentally. These two transgenic mouse models exhibited ocular phenotype, including lens opacity (cataract) and microphthalmic eyes. Importantly, various histological, immunofluorescence and biochemical analyses performed in these developing transgenic mice have revealed defective lens morphogenesis, abnormal fiber cell migration, elongation, disrupted cytoskeletal organization and adhesive interactions, along with changes in proteins of the fiber cell gap junctions and water channels.^32,39 These lenses have also shown decreased ERM (ezrin, radixin, moesin) protein phosphorylation,⁴⁰ proteins that are involved in crosslinking of the plasma membrane with actin cytoskeleton,⁴¹ and increased apoptosis.³² Defective fiber cell migration has been found to be more notable in the Rho GDI overexpressing lenses than in the C3 exoenzyme expressing lenses (Fig. 2). The Rho GDI overexpressing lenses have shown a defective membrane localization of Rho, Rac and Cdc42 confirming their inactivation. These data, together with mechanistic studies performed using the lens epithelial cells and the noted effects on cell shape, actin polymerization, myosin phosphorylation and cell adhesive interactions, reveal the importance of Rho GTPase-dependent signaling pathways in processes underlying fiber cell migration, elongation, cytoskeletal and membrane organization and survival in the developing lens.⁷ Lens fiber cell BMC has been found to be localized intensely with Rac GTPase involved in cell migration (our unpublished work). Additionally, the Rho GDI transgenic lenses showed an impaired apical-apical cell-cell interactions between the fiber cells and epithelial cells.³² Moreover, the ruptured posterior capsule and disrupted suture lines in these lenses are indicative of defective BMC organization and activity.³²Open in a separate windowFigure 2Abnormal lens phenotype in the neonatal Rho GDIα overexpressing transgenic mouse. Hematoxylin and eosin-stained sagittal sections of P1 RhoGDIα transgenic eyes reveal abnormal migration and morphology of the posterior lens fibers as compared with the symmetric organization of lens fibers and their migration toward the lens suture in the wild type mouse (reproduced with permission from Maddala et al.)³².Further support for involvement of Rho GTPases in lens fiber cell differentiation and survival has come from studies conducted with chick lens epithelial explants and cultured epithelial cells. Inactivation of Rho kinase or Rac activation by PI3 kinase in chick lens epithelial cells has been reported to induce fiber cell differentiation and survival in association with distinct cortical actin cytoskeletal reorganization, indicating the significance of Rho GTPases in lens fiber cell differentiation and survival.^9,42 Additionally, lens fiber cell elongation and differentiation has been found to be associated with increased myosin light chain (MLC) phosphorylation, and inhibition of MLC phosphorylation regulated by MLC kinase and Rho kinase has induced lens opacity and disruption of cytoskeletal integrity, supporting the importance of myosin II activity in maintaining lens architecture and transparency.¹⁰ Importantly, various growth factors that regulate lens morphogenesis, fiber cell differentiation, and survival have been found to activate Rho and Rac GTPases and to induce MLC phosphorylation, actin cytoskeletal reorganization, and focal adhesion formation in lens epithelial cells.^7,30 In addition to Rho GTPases, inhibition of Src kinase has been shown to induce fiber cell differentiation in association with actin cytoskeletal reorganization and cell adhesive interactions.⁴³ Also, the expression and activation of focal adhesion kinase has been reported to increase in differentiating and migrating lens epithelial cells.⁴⁴ Both these molecules are well recognized to regulate cell migration by participating in the disassembly of cell adhesions at the front of migrating cells.³⁵Additional evidence for the participation of actin cytoskeletal organization and Rho GTPases in lens fiber cell migration and elongation has been derived from the studies of Abi-2 deficient mouse. Abl-interactor adaptor proteins Abi-1 and Abi-2 are linked to the Rac-WAVE-Arp2/3 signaling pathway and regulate actin polymerization and cell-cell adhesive interactions.⁴⁵ Homozygous deletion of Abi-2 in mice has been shown to exhibit ocular phenotype including microphthalmia and lens opacity similar to the Rho GDI overexpressing transgenic mouse eyes noted in previous studies.^23,32 In the absence of Abi-2, the secondary lens fiber orientation, migration and elongation were found to be defective, supporting the importance of Rac-WAVE-Arp2/3 signaling in lens fiber cell migration and cell adhesion.²³ Abi-2 has been shown to localize intensely to the both basal and apical regions of the fiber cells and adherens junctions, and suppression of Abi-2 expression in epithelial cells resulted in impaired adherens junctions and downregulation of actin nucleation promoting factors.²³ The significance of cytoskeletal signaling in lens has also been implicated in Lowe syndrome, a rare X-linked disorder characterized by congenital cataracts, results from mutations in the OCRL1 gene. The OCRL1 protein product (phosphatidylinositol 4, 5 bisphosphate 5-phosphatase) has been shown to participate in Rac GTPase regulated actin cytoskeletal organization, cell migration, and cell adhesion in various cell types.⁴⁶ Finally, Wnt/PCP signaling via activation of Rho GTPases has been suggested to control lens morphogenesis, fiber cell migration and differentiation.²⁶Importantly, given how the activity of the Rho GTPases is regulated by external cues and various effector proteins, a detailed understanding of the regulation of Rho GTPase signaling is necessary for a better appreciation of their role in lens morphogenesis, fiber cell elongation and differentiation, and tensional homeostasis. Further mechanistic studies are critical to unravel the specific role(s) of Rho GTPases and other cytoskeletal regulatory mechanisms involved in regulating the formation and disassembly of fiber cell basal and apical membrane complexes, fiber cell lateral membrane remodeling, and fiber cell-cell adhesive interactions during lens differentiation. Very little is known in terms of the assembly of different cell adhesive molecules at the apical-apical interface between the lens fibers and epithelial cells. We are only beginning to glimpse the regulatory networks involved in the regulation of fiber cell elongation, polarity, migration and adhesion. Many challenging questions remain: for example, how are the pathways regulating migration, basal and apical membrane complexes, and tensional homeostasis controlled by extracellular signals, and how are they integrated during fiber cell migration, suture formation, and packing? Novel insights into the molecular mechanisms regulating these cellular processes are expected to advance our understanding of lens morphogenesis, function and cataractogenesis.