PR55��, a Regulatory Subunit of PP2A, Specifically Regulates PP2A-mediated ��-Catenin Dephosphorylation

A central question in Wnt signaling is the regulation of β-catenin phosphorylation and degradation. Multiple kinases, including CKIα and GSK3, are involved in β-catenin phosphorylation. Protein phosphatases such as PP2A and PP1 have been implicated in the regulation of β-catenin. However, which phosphatase dephosphorylates β-catenin in vivo and how the specificity of β-catenin dephosphorylation is regulated are not clear. In this study, we show that PP2A regulates β-catenin phosphorylation and degradation in vivo. We demonstrate that PP2A is required for Wnt/β-catenin signaling in Drosophila. Moreover, we have identified PR55α as the regulatory subunit of PP2A that controls β-catenin phosphorylation and degradation. PR55α, but not the catalytic subunit, PP2Ac, directly interacts with β-catenin. RNA interference knockdown of PR55α elevates β-catenin phosphorylation and decreases Wnt signaling, whereas overexpressing PR55α enhances Wnt signaling. Taken together, our results suggest that PR55α specifically regulates PP2A-mediated β-catenin dephosphorylation and plays an essential role in Wnt signaling.Wnt/β-catenin signaling plays essential roles in development and tumorigenesis (1–3). Our previous work found that β-catenin is sequentially phosphorylated by CKIα⁴ and GSK3 (4), which creates a binding site for β-Trcp (5), leading to degradation via the ubiquitination/proteasome machinery (3). Mutations in β-catenin or APC genes that prevent β-catenin phosphorylation or ubiquitination/degradation lead ultimately to cancer (1, 2).In addition to the involvement of kinases, protein phosphatases, such as PP1, PP2A, and PP2C, are also implicated in Wnt/β-catenin regulation. PP2C and PP1 may regulate dephosphorylation of Axin and play positive roles in Wnt signaling (6, 7). PP2A is a multisubunit enzyme (8–10); it has been reported to play either positive or negative roles in Wnt signaling likely by targeting different components (11–21). Toward the goal of understanding the mechanism of β-catenin phosphorylation, we carried out siRNA screening targeting several major phosphatases, in which we found that PP2A dephosphorylates β-catenin. This is consistent with a recent study where PP2A is shown to dephosphorylate β-catenin in a cell-free system (18).PP2A consists of a catalytic subunit (PP2Ac), a structure subunit (PR65/A), and variable regulatory B subunits (PR/B, PR/B′, PR/B″, or PR/B‴). The substrate specificity of PP2A is thought to be determined by its B subunit (9). By siRNA screening, we further identified that PR55α, a regulatory subunit of PP2A, specifically regulates β-catenin phosphorylation and degradation. Mechanistically, we found that PR55α directly interacts with β-catenin and regulates PP2A-mediated β-catenin dephosphorylation in Wnt signaling.     

Paradoxical Condensation of Copper with Elevated ��-Amyloid in Lipid Rafts under Cellular Copper Deficiency Conditions: IMPLICATIONS FOR ALZHEIMER DISEASE*

Redox-active copper is implicated in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD), β-amyloid peptide (Aβ) aggregation, and amyloid formation. Aβ·copper complexes have been identified in AD and catalytically oxidize cholesterol and lipid to generate H₂O₂ and lipid peroxides. The site and mechanism of this abnormality is not known. Growing evidence suggests that amyloidogenic processing of the β-amyloid precursor protein (APP) occurs in lipid rafts, membrane microdomains enriched in cholesterol. β- and γ-secretases, and Aβ have been identified in lipid rafts in cultured cells, human and rodent brains, but the role of copper in lipid raft amyloidogenic processing is presently unknown. In this study, we found that copper modulates flotillin-2 association with cholesterol-rich lipid raft domains, and consequently Aβ synthesis is attenuated via copper-mediated inhibition of APP endocytosis. We also found that total cellular copper is associated inversely with lipid raft copper levels, so that under intracellular copper deficiency conditions, Aβ·copper complexes are more likely to form. This explains the paradoxical hypermetallation of Aβ with copper under tissue copper deficiency conditions in AD.Imbalance of metal ions has been recognized as one of the key factors in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD).² Aberrant interactions between copper or zinc with the β-amyloid peptide (Aβ) released into the glutamatergic synaptic cleft vicinity could result in the formation of toxic Aβ oligomers and aggregation into plaques characteristic of AD brains (reviewed in Ref. 1). Copper, iron, and zinc are highly concentrated in extracellular plaques (2, 3), and yet brain tissues from AD (4–6) and human β-amyloid precursor protein (APP) transgenic mice (7–10) are paradoxically copper deficient compared with age-matched controls. Elevation of intracellular copper levels by genetic, dietary, and pharmacological manipulations in both AD transgenic animal and cell culture models is able to attenuate Aβ production (7, 9, 11–15). However, the underlying mechanism is at present unclear.Abnormal cholesterol metabolism is also a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of AD. Hypercholesterolemia increases the risk of developing AD-like pathology in a transgenic mouse model (16). Epidemiological and animal model studies show that a hypercholesterolemic diet is associated with Aβ accumulation and accelerated cognitive decline, both of which are further aggravated by high dietary copper (17, 18). In contrast, biochemical depletion of cholesterol using statins, inhibitors of 3-hydroxy-3-methyglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, and methyl-β-cyclodextrin, a cholesterol sequestering agent, inhibit Aβ production in animal and cell culture models (19–25).Cholesterol is enriched in lipid rafts, membrane microdomains implicated in Aβ generation from APP cleavage by β- and γ-secretases. Recruitment of BACE1 (β-secretase) into lipid rafts increases the production of sAPP_β and Aβ (23, 26). The β-secretase-cleaved APP C-terminal fragment (β-CTF), and γ-secretase, a multiprotein complex composed of presenilin (PS1 or PS2), nicastrin (Nct), PEN-2 and APH-1, colocalize to lipid rafts (27). The accumulation of Aβ in lipid rafts isolated from AD and APP transgenic mice brains (28) provided further evidence that cholesterol plays a role in APP processing and Aβ generation.Currently, copper and cholesterol have been reported to modulate APP processing independently. However, evidence indicates that, despite tissue copper deficiency, Aβ·Cu²⁺ complexes form in AD that catalytically oxidize cholesterol and lipid to generate H₂O₂ and lipid peroxides (e.g. hydroxynonenal and malondialdehyde), which contribute to oxidative damage observed in AD (29–35). The underlying mechanism leading to the formation of pathological Aβ·Cu²⁺ complexes is unknown. In this study, we show that copper alters the structure of lipid rafts, and attenuates Aβ synthesis in lipid rafts by inhibition of APP endocytosis. We also identify a paradoxical inverse relationship between total cellular copper levels and copper distribution to lipid rafts, which appear to possess a privileged pool of copper where Aβ is more likely to interact with Cu²⁺ under copper-deficiency conditions to form Aβ·Cu²⁺ complexes. These data provide a novel mechanism by which cellular copper deficiency in AD could foster an environment for potentially adverse interactions between Aβ, copper, and cholesterol in lipid rafts.     

Loop 2 Structure in Glycine and GABAA Receptors Plays a Key Role in Determining Ethanol Sensitivity

The present study tests the hypothesis that the structure of extracellular domain Loop 2 can markedly affect ethanol sensitivity in glycine receptors (GlyRs) and γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptors (GABA_ARs). To test this, we mutated Loop 2 in the α1 subunit of GlyRs and in the γ subunit of α1β2γ2GABA_ARs and measured the sensitivity of wild type and mutant receptors expressed in Xenopus oocytes to agonist, ethanol, and other agents using two-electrode voltage clamp. Replacing Loop 2 of α1GlyR subunits with Loop 2 from the δGABA_AR (δL2), but not the γGABA_AR subunit, reduced ethanol threshold and increased the degree of ethanol potentiation without altering general receptor function. Similarly, replacing Loop 2 of the γ subunit of GABA_ARs with δL2 shifted the ethanol threshold from 50 mm in WT to 1 mm in the GABA_A γ-δL2 mutant. These findings indicate that the structure of Loop 2 can profoundly affect ethanol sensitivity in GlyRs and GABA_ARs. The δL2 mutations did not affect GlyR or GABA_AR sensitivity, respectively, to Zn²⁺ or diazepam, which suggests that these δL2-induced changes in ethanol sensitivity do not extend to all allosteric modulators and may be specific for ethanol or ethanol-like agents. To explore molecular mechanisms underlying these results, we threaded the WT and δL2 GlyR sequences onto the x-ray structure of the bacterial Gloeobacter violaceus pentameric ligand-gated ion channel homologue (GLIC). In addition to being the first GlyR model threaded on GLIC, the juxtaposition of the two structures led to a possible mechanistic explanation for the effects of ethanol on GlyR-based on changes in Loop 2 structure.Alcohol abuse and dependence are significant problems in our society, with ∼14 million people in the United States being affected (1, 2). Alcohol causes over 100,000 deaths in the United States, and alcohol-related issues are estimated to cost nearly 200 billion dollars annually (2). To address this, considerable attention has focused on the development of medications to prevent and treat alcohol-related problems (3–5). The development of such medications would be aided by a clear understanding of the molecular structures on which ethanol acts and how these structures influence receptor sensitivity to ethanol.Ligand-gated ion channels (LGICs)² have received substantial attention as putative sites of ethanol action that cause its behavioral effects (6–12). Research in this area has focused on investigating the effects of ethanol on two large superfamilies of LGICs: 1) the Cys-loop superfamily of LGICs (13, 14), whose members include nicotinic acetylcholine, 5-hydroxytryptamine₃, γ-aminobutyric acid type A (GABA_A), γ-aminobutyric acid type C, and glycine receptors (GlyRs) (10, 11, 15–20) and 2) the glutamate superfamily, including N-methyl d-aspartate, α-amino-3-hydroxyisoxazolepropionic acid, and kainate receptors (21, 22). Recent studies have also begun investigating ethanol action in the ATP-gated P2X superfamily of LGICs (23–25).A series of studies that employed chimeric and mutagenic strategies combined with sulfhydryl-specific labeling identified key regions within Cys-loop receptors that appear to be initial targets for ethanol action that also can determine the sensitivity of the receptors to ethanol (7–12, 18, 19, 26–30). This work provides several lines of evidence that position 267 and possibly other sites in the transmembrane (TM) domain of GlyRs and homologous sites in GABA_ARs are targets for ethanol action and that mutations at these sites can influence ethanol sensitivity (8, 9, 26, 31).Growing evidence from GlyRs indicates that ethanol also acts on the extracellular domain. The initial findings came from studies demonstrating that α1GlyRs are more sensitive to ethanol than are α2GlyRs despite the high (∼78%) sequence homology between α1GlyRs and α2GlyRs (32). Further work found that an alanine to serine exchange at position 52 (A52S) in Loop 2 can eliminate the difference in ethanol sensitivity between α1GlyRs and α2GlyRs (18, 20, 33). These studies also demonstrated that mutations at position 52 in α1GlyRS and the homologous position 59 in α2GlyRs controlled the sensitivity of these receptors to a novel mechanistic ethanol antagonist (20). Collectively, these studies suggest that there are multiple sites of ethanol action in α1GlyRs, with one site located in the TM domain (e.g. position 267) and another in the extracellular domain (e.g. position 52).Subsequent studies revealed that the polarity of the residue at position 52 plays a key role in determining the sensitivity of GlyRs to ethanol (20). The findings with polarity in the extracellular domain contrast with the findings at position 267 in the TM domain, where molecular volume, but not polarity, significantly affected ethanol sensitivity (9). Taken together, these findings indicate that the physical-chemical parameters of residues at positions in the extracellular and TM domains that modulate ethanol effects and/or initiate ethanol action in GlyRs are not uniform. Thus, knowledge regarding the physical-chemical properties that control agonist and ethanol sensitivity is key for understanding the relationship between the structure and the actions of ethanol in LGICs (19, 31, 34–40).GlyRs and GABA_ARs, which differ significantly in their sensitivities to ethanol, offer a potential method for identifying the structures that control ethanol sensitivity. For example, α1GlyRs do not reliably respond to ethanol concentrations less than 10 mm (32, 33, 41). Similarly, γ subunit-containing GABA_ARs (e.g. α1β2γ2), the most predominantly expressed GABA_ARs in the central nervous system, are insensitive to ethanol concentrations less than 50 mm (42, 43). In contrast, δ subunit-containing GABA_ARs (e.g. α4β3δ) have been shown to be sensitive to ethanol concentrations as low as 1–3 mm (44–51). Sequence alignment of α1GlyR, γGABA_AR, and δGABA_AR revealed differences between the Loop 2 regions of these receptor subunits. Since prior studies found that mutations of Loop 2 residues can affect ethanol sensitivity (19, 20, 39), the non-conserved residues in Loop 2 of GlyR and GABA_AR subunits could provide the physical-chemical and structural bases underlying the differences in ethanol sensitivity between these receptors.The present study tested the hypothesis that the structure of Loop 2 can markedly affect the ethanol sensitivity of GlyRs and GABA_ARs. To accomplish this, we performed multiple mutations that replaced the Loop 2 region of the α1 subunit in α1GlyRs and the Loop 2 region of the γ subunit of α1β2γ2 GABA_ARs with corresponding non-conserved residues from the δ subunit of GABA_AR and tested the sensitivity of these receptors to ethanol. As predicted, replacing Loop 2 of WT α1GlyRs with the homologous residues from the δGABA_AR subunit (δL2), but not the γGABA_AR subunit (γL2), markedly increased the sensitivity of the receptor to ethanol. Similarly, replacing the non-conserved residues of the γ subunit of α1β2γ2 GABA_ARs with δL2 also markedly increased ethanol sensitivity of GABA_ARs. These findings support the hypothesis and suggest that Loop 2 may play a role in controlling ethanol sensitivity across the Cys-loop superfamily of receptors. The findings also provide the basis for suggesting structure-function relationships in a new molecular model of the GlyR based on the bacterial Gloeobacter violaceus pentameric LGIC homologue (GLIC).     

Insulin Receptor Dysfunction Impairs Cellular Clearance of Neurotoxic Oligomeric A��

Accumulation of amyloid β (Aβ) oligomers in the brain is toxic to synapses and may play an important role in memory loss in Alzheimer disease. However, how these toxins are built up in the brain is not understood. In this study we investigate whether impairments of insulin and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) receptors play a role in aggregation of Aβ. Using primary neuronal culture and immortal cell line models, we show that expression of normal insulin or IGF-1 receptors confers cells with abilities to reduce exogenously applied Aβ oligomers (also known as ADDLs) to monomers. In contrast, transfection of malfunctioning human insulin receptor mutants, identified originally from patient with insulin resistance syndrome, or inhibition of insulin and IGF-1 receptors via pharmacological reagents increases ADDL levels by exacerbating their aggregation. In healthy cells, activation of insulin and IGF-1 receptor reduces the extracellular ADDLs applied to cells via seemingly the insulin-degrading enzyme activity. Although insulin triggers ADDL internalization, IGF-1 appears to keep ADDLs on the cell surface. Nevertheless, both insulin and IGF-1 reduce ADDL binding, protect synapses from ADDL synaptotoxic effects, and prevent the ADDL-induced surface insulin receptor loss. Our results suggest that dysfunctions of brain insulin and IGF-1 receptors contribute to Aβ aggregation and subsequent synaptic loss.Abnormal protein misfolding and aggregation are common features in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer (AD),² Parkinson, Huntington, and prion diseases (1–3). In the AD brain, intracellular accumulation of hyperphosphorylated Tau aggregates and extracellular amyloid deposits comprise the two major pathological hallmarks of the disease (1, 4). Aβ aggregation has been shown to initiate from Aβ1–42, a peptide normally cleaved from the amyloid precursor protein (APP) via activities of α- and γ-secretases (5, 6). A large body of evidence in the past decade has indicated that accumulated soluble oligomers of Aβ1–42, likely the earliest or intermediate forms of Aβ deposition, are potently toxic to neurons. The toxic effects of Aβ oligomers include synaptic structural deterioration (7, 8) and functional deficits such as inhibition of synaptic transmission (9) and synaptic plasticity (10–13), as well as memory loss (11, 14, 15). Accumulation of high levels of these oligomers may also trigger inflammatory processes and oxidative stress in the brain probably due to activation of astrocytes and microglia (16, 17). Thus, to understand how a physiologically produced peptide becomes a misfolded toxin has been one of the key issues in uncovering the molecular pathogenesis of the disease.Aβ accumulation and aggregation could derive from overproduction or impaired clearance. Mutations of APP or presenilins 1 and 2, for example, are shown to cause overproduction of Aβ1–42 and amyloid deposits in the brain of early onset AD (18, 19). Because early onset AD accounts for less than 5% of entire AD population, APP and presenilin mutations cannot represent a universal mechanism for accumulation/aggregation of Aβ in the majority of AD cases. With respect to clearance, Aβ is normally removed by both global and local mechanisms, with the former requiring vascular transport across the blood-brain barrier (20, 21) and the latter via local enzymatic digestions by several metalloproteases, including neprilysin, insulin-degrading enzyme (IDE), and endothelin converting enzymes 1 and 2 (22–24).The fact that insulin is a common substrate for most of the identified Aβ-degrading enzymes has drawn attention of investigators to roles of insulin signaling in Aβ clearance. Increases in insulin levels frequently seen in insulin resistance may compete for these enzymes and thus contribute to Aβ accumulation. Indeed, insulin signaling has been shown to regulate expression of metalloproteases such as IDE (25, 26), and influence aspects of Aβ metabolism and catabolism (27). In the endothelium of the brain-blood barrier and glial cells, insulin signaling is reported to regulate protein-protein interactions in an uptake cascade involving low density lipoprotein receptor-related protein and its ligands ApoE and α2-macroglobulin, a system known to bind and clear Aβ via endocytosis and/or vascular transport (28, 29). Similarly, circulating IGF-1 has been reported to play a role in Aβ clearance probably via facilitating brain-blood barrier transportation (30, 31).In the brain, insulin signaling plays a role in learning and memory (32–34), potentially linking insulin resistance to AD dementia. Recently we and others have shown that Aβ oligomers interact with neuronal insulin receptors to cause impairments of the receptor expression and function (35–37). These impairments mimic the Aβ oligomer-induced synaptic long term potentiation inhibition and can be overcome by insulin treatment (35, 38). Consistently, impairments of both IR and IGF-1R have been reported in the AD brain (39–41).Based on these results, we ask whether impairment of insulin and IGF-1 signaling contribute to Aβ oligomer build-up in brain cells. To address this question, we set out to test roles of IR and IGF-1R in cellular clearance and transport of Aβ oligomers (ADDLs) applied to primary neuronal cultures and cell lines overexpressing IR and IGF-1R. Our results show that insulin and IGF-1 receptors function to reduce Aβ oligomers to monomers, and prevent Aβ oligomer-induced synaptic toxicity both at the level of synapse composition and structure. By contrast, receptor impairments resulting from “kinase-dead” insulin receptor mutations, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the insulin and IGF-1 receptor, or an inhibitory IGF-1 receptor antibody increase ADDL aggregation in the extracellular medium. Our results provide cellular evidence linking insulin and IGF-1 signaling to amyloidogenesis.