The roles of cell adhesion molecules in tumor suppression and cell migration: A new paradox

In addition to mediating cell adhesion, many cell adhesion molecules act as tumor suppressors. These proteins are capable of restricting cell growth mainly through contact inhibition. Alterations of these cell adhesion molecules are a common event in cancer. The resulting loss of cell-cell and/or cell-extracellular matrix adhesion promotes cell growth as well as tumor dissemination. Therefore, it is conventionally accepted that cell adhesion molecules that function as tumor suppressors are also involved in limiting tumor cell migration. Paradoxically, in 2005, we identified an immunoglobulin superfamily cell adhesion molecule hepaCAM that is able to suppress cancer cell growth and yet induce migration. Almost concurrently, CEACAM1 was verified to co-function as a tumor suppressor and invasion promoter. To date, the reason and mechanism responsible for this exceptional phenomenon remain unclear. Nevertheless, the emergence of these intriguing cell adhesion molecules with conflicting roles may open a new chapter to the biological significance of cell adhesion molecules.Key words: hepaCAM, cell adhesion molecules, tumor suppressor, migration, E-cadherin, CADM1, integrin α7, CEACAM1It is well known that many cell adhesion molecules function as tumor suppressors (reviewed in ref. ¹). These molecules exert their tumor suppressive effect mainly through cell-adhesion-mediated contact inhibition. Cell adhesion molecules allow cells to communicate with one another or to the extracellular environment by mediating cell-cell or cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions (reviewed in refs. ² and ³). Broadly, these proteins can be classified into five families including immunoglobulin superfamily, integrins, cadherins, selectins and CD44. Apart from participating in the development and maintenance of tissue architecture, cell adhesion molecules serve as cell surface receptors critical for capturing, integrating and transmitting signals from the extracellular milieu to the cell interior (reviewed in refs. ² and ³). These signaling events are vital for the regulation of a wide variety of cellular functions including embryogenesis, immune and inflammatory responses, tissue repair, cell migration, differentiation, proliferation and apoptosis. Alterations of these cell adhesion molecules are a common event in cancer (reviewed in refs. ^{1, 2, 4} and ⁵). The disrupted cell-cell or cell-ECM adhesion significantly contributes to uncontrolled cell proliferation and progressive distortion of normal tissue architecture. More importantly, changes in cell adhesion molecules play a causal role in tumor dissemination. Loss of cell adhesion contacts allows malignant cells to detach and to escape from the primary mass. Gaining a more motile and invasive phenotype, these cells break down the ECM and eventually invade and metastasize to distal organs.Based on the above understanding, it is conventionally accepted that cell adhesion molecules with tumor suppressor activity, when expressed in cancer cells, are able to exert inhibitory effect on cell motility. The ability of cells in migration/motility is a prerequisite for cancer invasion and metastasis (reviewed in refs. ¹ and ⁵). Indeed, a number of cell adhesion molecule-tumor suppressors have been reported to be capable of reducing cell migration. The most classical example is E-cadherin, a calcium-dependent cell adhesion molecule. E-cadherin is expressed exclusively in epithelial cells and its expression is commonly suppressed in tumors of epithelial origins. The cytoplasmic domain of E-cadherin interacts with catenins to establish an intracellular linkage with the actin cytoskeleton (reviewed in ref. ⁶). The assembly of E-cadherin with the cytoskeleton via catenins at the sites of adherens junctions is important for the stabilization of cell-cell adhesions. Disruption of E-cadherin-mediated cell-cell adhesion, due to loss of expression or function of E-cadherin and/or catenins, is assocated with tumor development and progression (reviewed in ref. ⁷). Forced expression of E-cadherin in several cancer cell lines not only slows down cell growth^8,9 but also significantly reduces the invasiveness of the cells.^10,11 On the other hand, inhibition of E-cadherin by function-blocking antibodies and antisense RNA restores the invasiveness in non-invasive transformed cells.¹¹ Furthermore, using a transgenic mouse model of pancreatic beta-cell carcinogenesis, it has been demonstrated that E-cadherin-mediated cell adhesion is important in preventing the transition from well differentiated adenoma to invasive carcinoma.¹²Cell adhesion molecule 1 (CADM1), another example, has also been implicated in cancer progression. CADM1 is a member of the immunoglobulin superfamily and mediates cell-cell adhesion.¹³ The molecule associates with the actin cytoskeleton via the differentially expressed in adenocarcinoma of the lung (DAL1) protein; and the formation of CADM1-DAL1 complex is dependent on the integrity of actin cytoskeleton.¹⁴ Inactivation of the CADM1 and/or DAL1 gene usually through methylation has been reported in diverse human cancers.^15,16 A paper by Ito et al. showed that restoration of CADM1 expression in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma cells not only suppresses cell growth, but also retards cell motility and invasion.¹⁶In contrast to E-cadherin and CADM1, integrin α7 is a cell-ECM adhesion molecule which also possesses tumor suppressor activity. Ren et al. showed that integrin α7 gene is mutated in several human malignances; and the mutations are associated with an increase in cancer recurrence.¹⁷ Forced expression of integrin α7 in integrin α7-deficient leiomyosarcoma cells results in decreased colony formation and slower cell motility. Conversely, knockdown of integrin α7 in lung cancer cells expressing wild-type integrin α7 increases the colony number and cell motility rate. In addition, the researchers revealed that mice bearing xenograft tumors overexpressing integrin α7 have reduced tumor size with no obvious metastasis.In 2005, we first reported the identification of a cell adhesion molecule belonging to the immunoglobulin superfamily, designated as hepaCAM.¹⁸ To date, we have shown that the gene is frequently downregulated in a variety of human cancers.^18,19 Re-expression of hepaCAM in the hepatocellular carcinoma HepG2 cells¹⁸ and breast cancer MCF7 cells¹⁹ inhibits colony formation and retards cell proliferation. In addition, expression of hepaCAM in MCF7 cells results in cell cycle arrest at the G₂/M phase and cellular senescence. Concurrently, the expression of several senescence-associated proteins including p53, p21 and p27 is enhanced. Moreover, downregulation of p53 by p53-specific small interfering RNA in cells expressing hepaCAM clearly reduces p21 without changing p27 and alleviates senescence, indicating that hepaCAM induces senescence through a p53/p21-dependent pathway.¹⁹ Together, the data suggest that hepaCAM is a tumor suppressor. Interestingly, the expression of hepaCAM in both HepG2 and MCF7 cells stimulates both cell-ECM adhesion and cell migration.^18,20,21 The function of hepaCAM as a tumor suppressor in cell migration is contradictory to other cell adhesion molecule-tumor suppressors. Noteworthily, hepaCAM-mediated cell motility is evidenced by its direct interaction with the actin cytoskeleton.²¹Evidences are currently emerging to support the contradictory roles of cell adhesion molecules that both inhibit cell growth and promote cell motility when restored in cancer cells. In addition to hepaCAM, the immunoglobulin superfamily carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule 1 (CEACAM1) is implicated to function as a tumor suppressor and a metastasis promoter. The characteristics and functions of CEACAM1 have been demonstrated in individual reports. CEACAM1 is frequently downregulated or dysregulated in multiple human tumors,^22–25 and is capable of suppressing cell growth and inducing apoptosis.^26–28 Ebrahimnejad et al. demonstrated that exogenous expression of CEACAM1 enhances melanoma cell invasion and migration; and this enhanced motility can be reverted by anti-CEACAM antibodies.²⁹ The ability of CEACAM to co-stimulate tumor suppression and invasion was finally established by Liu et al. in restricting thyroid cancer growth but promoting invasiveness.³⁰ Introduction of CEACAM1 into CEACAM1-deficient thyroid cancer cells results in G₁/S phase cell cycle arrest accompanied by elevated p21 expression and diminished Rb phosphorylation. Overexpression of CEACAM1 also increases cell-ECM adhesion and promotes cell migration and tumor invasiveness. In xenografted mice, CEACAM1 expression results in reduced tumor growth but increased tumor invasiveness. Conversely, silencing of endogenous CEACAM1 accelerates tumor growth and suppresses invasiveness.³⁰It is an exciting issue to address why a cell adhesion molecule is able to suppress tumor growth yet promote tumor progression. Could there be a molecular switch that controls the functions of the gene between a tumor suppressor and a migration promoter in cancer or are the functions executed simultaneously? The expression level, the extracellular cues as well as the interacting partners of the cell adhesion molecules may likely play a critical role in regulating its functions. The question is under what circumstances these factors come into play. To answer all these questions, and maybe more, on the intriguing findings of these proteins, more extensive and intensive experimentation is required. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the emergence of these cell adhesion molecules that function in a contradictory manner opens a new chapter to the biological significance of cell adhesion molecules.     

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     

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.     

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     

Human non-CG methylation: Are human stem cells plant-like?

Non-CG methylation is well characterized in plants where it appears to play a role in gene silencing and genomic imprinting. Although strong evidence for the presence of non-CG methylation in mammals has been available for some time, both its origin and function remain elusive. In this review we discuss available evidence on non-CG methylation in mammals in light of evidence suggesting that the human stem cell methylome contains significant levels of methylation outside the CG site.Key words: non-CG methylation, stem cells, Dnmt1, Dnmt3a, human methylomeIn plant cells non-CG sites are methylated de novo by Chromomethylase 3, DRM1 and DRM2. Chromomethylase 3, along with DRM1 and DRM2 combine in the maintenance of methylation at symmetric CpHpG as well as asymmetric DNA sites where they appear to prevent reactivation of transposons.¹ DRM1 and DRM2 modify DNA de novo primarily at asymmetric CpH and CpHpH sequences targeted by siRNA.²Much less information is available on non-CG methylation in mammals. In fact, studies on mammalian non-CG methylation form a tiny fraction of those on CG methylation, even though data for cytosine methylation in other dinucleotides, CA, CT and CC, have been available since the late 1980s.³ Strong evidence for non-CG methylation was found by examining either exogenous DNA sequences, such as plasmid and viral integrants in mouse and human cell lines,^4,5 or transposons and repetitive sequences such as the human L1 retrotransposon⁶ in a human embryonic fibroblast cell line. In the latter study, non-CG methylation observed in L1 was found to be consistent with the capacity of Dnmt1 to methylate slippage intermediates de novo.⁶Non-CG methylation has also been reported at origins of replication^7,8 and a region of the human myogenic gene Myf3.⁹ The Myf3 gene is silenced in non-muscle cell lines but it is not methylated at CGs. Instead, it carries several methylated cytosines within the sequence CCTGG. Gene-specific non-CG methylation was also reported in a study of lymphoma and myeloma cell lines not expressing many B lineage-specific genes.¹⁰ The study focused on one specific gene, B29 and found heavy CG promoter methylation of that gene in most cell lines not expressing it. However, in two other cell lines where the gene was silenced, cytosine methylation was found almost exclusively at CCWGG sites. The authors provided evidence suggesting that CCWGG methylation was sufficient for silencing the B29 promoter and that methylated probes based on B29 sequences had unique gel shift patterns compared to non-methylated but otherwise identical sequences.¹⁰ The latter finding suggests that the presence of the non-CG methylation causes changes in the proteins able to bind the promoter, which could be mechanistically related to the silencing seen with this alternate methylation.Non-CG methylation is rarely seen in DNA isolated from cancer patients. However, the p16 promoter region was reported to contain both CG and non-CG methylation in breast tumor specimens but lacked methylation at these sites in normal breast tissue obtained at mammoplasty.¹¹ Moreover, CWG methylation at the CCWGG sites in the calcitonin gene is not found in normal or leukemic lymphocyte DNA obtained from patients.¹² Further, in DNA obtained from breast cancer patients, MspI sites that are refractory to digestion by MspI and thus candidates for CHG methylation were found to carry CpG methylation.¹³ Their resistance to MspI restriction was found to be caused by an unusual secondary structure in the DNA spanning the MspI site that prevents restriction.¹³ This latter observation suggests caution in interpreting EcoRII/BstNI or EcoRII/BstOI restriction differences as due to CWG methylation, since in contrast to the 37°C incubation temperature required for full EcoRII activity, BstNI and BstOI require incubation at 60°C for full activity where many secondary structures are unstable.The recent report by Lister et al.¹⁴ confirmed a much earlier report by Ramsahoye et al.¹⁵ suggesting that non-CG methylation is prevalent in mammalian stem cell lines. Nearest neighbor analysis was used to detect non-CG methylation in the earlier study on the mouse embryonic stem (ES) cell line,¹⁵ thus global methylation patterning was assessed. Lister et al.¹⁴ extend these findings to human stem cell lines at single-base resolution with whole-genome bisulfite sequencing. They report¹⁴ that the methylome of the human H1 stem cell line and the methylome of the induced pluripotent IMR90 (iPS) cell line are stippled with non-CG methylation while that of the human IMR90 fetal fibroblast cell line is not. While the results of the two studies are complementary, the human methylome study addresses locus specific non-CG methylation. Based on that data,¹⁴ one must conclude that non-CG methylation is not carefully maintained at a given site in the human H1 cell line. The average non-CG site is picked up as methylated in about 25% of the reads whereas the average CG methylation site is picked up in 92% of the reads. Moreover, non-CG methylation is not generally present on both strands and is concentrated in the body of actively transcribed genes.¹⁴Even so, the consistent finding that non-CG methylation appears to be confined to stem cell lines,^14,15 raises the possibility that cancer stem cells¹⁶ carry non-CG methylation while their nonstem progeny in the tumor carry only CG methylation. Given the expected paucity of cancer stem cells in a tumor cell population, it is unlikely that bisulfite sequencing would detect non-CG methylation in DNA isolated from tumor cells since the stem cell population is expected to be only a very minor component of tumor DNA. Published sequences obtained by bisulfite sequencing generally report only CG methylation, and to the best of our knowledge bisulfite sequenced tumor DNA specimens have not reported non-CG methylation. On the other hand, when sequences from cell lines have been reported, bisulfite-mediated genomic sequencing⁸ or ligation mediated PCR¹⁷ methylcytosine signals outside the CG site have been observed. In a more recent study plasmid DNAs carrying the Bcl2-major breakpoint cluster¹⁸ or human breast cancer DNA¹³ treated with bisulfite under non-denaturing conditions, cytosines outside the CG side were only partially converted on only one strand¹⁸ or at a symmetrical CWG site.¹³ In the breast cancer DNA study the apparent CWG methylation was not detected when the DNA was fully denatured before bisulfite treatment.¹³In both stem cell studies, non-CG methylation was attributed to the Dnmt3a,^14,15 a DNA methyltransferase with similarities to the plant DRM methyltransferase family¹⁹ and having the capacity to methylate non-CG sites when expressed in Drosophila melanogaster.¹⁵ DRM proteins however, possess a unique permuted domain structure found exclusively in plants¹⁹ and the associated RNA-directed non-CG DNA methylation has not been reproducibly observed in mammals despite considerable published^20–23 and unpublished efforts in that area. Moreover, reports where methylation was studied often infer methylation changes from 5AzaC reactivation studies²⁴ or find that CG methylation seen in plants but not non-CG methylation is detected.^21,22,25,26 In this regard, it is of interest that the level of non-CG methylation reported in stem cells corresponds to background non-CG methylation observed in vitro with human DNA methyltransferase I,²⁷ and is consistent with the recent report that cultured stem cells are epigenetically unstable.²⁸The function of non-CG methylation remains elusive. A role in gene expression has not been ruled out, as the studies above on Myf3 and B29 suggest.^9,10 However, transgene expression of the bacterial methyltransferase M.EcoRII in a human cell line (HK293), did not affect the CG methylation state at the APC and SerpinB5 genes²⁹ even though the promoters were symmetrically de novo methylated at ^mCWGs within each CCWGG sequence in each promoter. This demonstrated that CG and non-CG methylation are not mutually exclusive as had been suggested by earlier reports.^9,10 That observation is now extended to the human stem cell line methylome where CG and non-CG methylation co-exist.¹⁴ Gene expression at the APC locus was likewise unaffected by transgene expression of M.EcoRII. In those experiments genome wide methylation of the CCWGG site was detected by restriction analysis and bisulfite sequencing,²⁹ however stem cell characteristics were not studied.Many alternative functions can be envisioned for non-CG methylation, but the existing data now constrains them to functions that involve low levels of methylation that are primarily asymmetric. Moreover, inheritance of such methylation patterns requires low fidelity methylation. If methylation were maintained with high fidelity at particular CHG sites one would expect that the spontaneous deamination of 5-methylcytosine would diminish the number of such sites, so as to confine the remaining sites to those positions performing an essential function, as is seen in CG methylation.^30–33 However, depletion of CWG sites is not observed in the human genome.³⁴ Since CWG sites account for only about 50% of the non-CG methylation observed in the stem cell methylome¹⁴ where methylated non-CG sites carry only about 25% methylation, the probability of deamination would be about 13% of that for CWG sites that are subject to maintenance methylation in the germ line. Since mutational depletion of methylated cytosines has to have its primary effect on the germ line, if the maintenance of non-CG methylation were more accurate and more widespread, one would have had to argue that stem cells in the human germ lines lack CWG methylation. As it is the data suggests that whatever function non-CG methylation may have in stem cells, it does not involve accurate somatic inheritance in the germ line.The extensive detail on non-CG methylation in the H1 methylome¹⁴ raises interesting questions about the nature of this form of methylation in human cell lines. A key finding in this report is the contrast between the presence of non-CG methylation in the H1 stem cell line and its absence in the IMR90 human fetal lung fibroblast cell line.¹⁴ This suggests that it may have a role in the origin and maintenance of the pluripotent lineage.¹⁴By analogy with the well known methylated DNA binding proteins specific for CG methylation,³⁵ methylated DNA binding proteins that selectively bind sites of non-CG methylation are expected to exist in stem cells. Currently the only protein reported to have this binding specificity is human Dnmt1.^36–38 While Dnmt1 has been proposed to function stoichiometrically³⁹ and could serve a non-CG binding role in stem cells, this possibility and the possibility that other stem-cell specific non-CG binding proteins might exist remain to be been explored.Finally, the nature of the non-CG methylation patterns in human stem cell lines present potentially difficult technical problems in methylation analysis. First, based on the data in the H1 stem cell methylome,⁴⁰ a standard MS-qPCR for non-CG methylation would be impractical because non-CG sites are infrequent, rarely clustered and are generally characterized by partial asymmetric methylation. This means that a PCR primer that senses the 3 adjacent methylation sites usually recommended for MS-qPCR primer design^41,42 cannot be reliably found. For example in the region near Oct4 (Chr6:31,246,431), a potential MS-qPCR site exists with a suboptimal set of two adjacent CHG sites both methylated on the + strand at Chr6:31,252,225 and 31,252,237.^14,40 However these sites were methylated only in 13/45 and 30/52 reads. Thus the probability that they would both be methylated on the same strand is about 17%. Moreover, reverse primer locations containing non-CG methylation sites are generally too far away for practical bisulfite mediated PCR. Considering the losses associated with bisulfite mediated PCR⁴³ the likelihood that such an MS-qPCR system would detect non-CG methylation in the H1 cell line or stem cells present in a cancer stem cell niche^44,45 is very low.The second difficulty is that methods based on the specificity of MeCP2 and similar methylated DNA binding proteins for enriching methylated DNA (e.g., MIRA,⁴⁶ COMPARE-MS⁴⁷) will discard sequences containing non-CG methylation since they require cooperative binding afforded by runs of adjacent methylated CG sites for DNA capture. This latter property of the methylated cytosine capture techniques makes it also unlikely that methods based on 5-methylcytosine antibodies (e.g., meDIP⁴⁸) will capture non-CG methylation patterns accurately since the stem cell methylome shows that adjacent methylated non-CG sites are rare in comparison to methylated CG sites.¹⁴In summary, whether or not mammalian stem cells in general or human stem cells in particular possess functional plant-like methylation patterns is likely to continue to be an interesting and challenging question. At this point we can conclude that the non-CG patterns reported in human cells appear to differ significantly from the non-CG patterns seen in plants, suggesting that they do not have a common origin or function.     

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.     

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.     

Hypoxia: A novel function for VIN3

VERNALIZATION INSENSITIVE 3 (VIN3) encodes a PHD domain chromatin remodelling protein that is induced in response to cold and is required for the establishment of the vernalization response in Arabidopsis thaliana.¹ Vernalization is the acquisition of the competence to flower after exposure to prolonged low temperatures, which in Arabidopsis is associated with the epigenetic repression of the floral repressor FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC).^2,3 During vernalization VIN3 binds to the chromatin of the FLC locus,¹ and interacts with conserved components of Polycomb-group Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2).^4,5 This complex catalyses the tri-methylation of histone H3 lysine 27 (H3K27me3),^4,6,7 a repressive chromatin mark that increases at the FLC locus as a result of vernalization.^4,7–10 In our recent paper¹¹ we found that VIN3 is also induced by hypoxic conditions, and as is the case with low temperatures, induction occurs in a quantitative manner. Our experiments indicated that VIN3 is required for the survival of Arabidopsis seedlings exposed to low oxygen conditions. We suggested that the function of VIN3 during low oxygen conditions is likely to involve the mediation of chromatin modifications at certain loci that help the survival of Arabidopsis in response to prolonged hypoxia. Here we discuss the implications of our observations and hypotheses in terms of epigenetic mechanisms controlling gene regulation in response to hypoxia.Key words: arabidopsis, VIN3, FLC, hypoxia, vernalization, chromatin remodelling, survival     

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

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

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

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

Plant defensins: Defense,development and application

Plant defensins are small, highly stable, cysteine-rich peptides that constitute a part of the innate immune system primarily directed against fungal pathogens. Biological activities reported for plant defensins include antifungal activity, antibacterial activity, proteinase inhibitory activity and insect amylase inhibitory activity. Plant defensins have been shown to inhibit infectious diseases of humans and to induce apoptosis in a human pathogen. Transgenic plants overexpressing defensins are strongly resistant to fungal pathogens. Based on recent studies, some plant defensins are not merely toxic to microbes but also have roles in regulating plant growth and development.Key words: defensin, antifungal, antimicrobial peptide, development, innate immunityDefensins are diverse members of a large family of cationic host defence peptides (HDP), widely distributed throughout the plant and animal kingdoms.^1–3 Defensins and defensin-like peptides are functionally diverse, disrupting microbial membranes and acting as ligands for cellular recognition and signaling.⁴ In the early 1990s, the first members of the family of plant defensins were isolated from wheat and barley grains.^5,6 Those proteins were originally called γ-thionins because their size (∼5 kDa, 45 to 54 amino acids) and cysteine content (typically 4, 6 or 8 cysteine residues) were found to be similar to the thionins.⁷ Subsequent “γ-thionins” homologous proteins were indentified and cDNAs were cloned from various monocot or dicot seeds.⁸ Terras and his colleagues⁹ isolated two antifungal peptides, Rs-AFP1 and Rs-AFP2, noticed that the plant peptides'' structural and functional properties resemble those of insect and mammalian defensins, and therefore termed the family of peptides “plant defensins” in 1995. Sequences of more than 80 different plant defensin genes from different plant species were analyzed.¹⁰ A query of the UniProt database (www.uniprot.org/) currently reveals publications of 371 plant defensins available for review. The Arabidopsis genome alone contains more than 300 defensin-like (DEFL) peptides, 78% of which have a cysteine-stabilized α-helix β-sheet (CSαβ) motif common to plant and invertebrate defensins.¹¹ In addition, over 1,000 DEFL genes have been identified from plant EST projects.¹²Unlike the insect and mammalian defensins, which are mainly active against bacteria,^2,3,10,13 plant defensins, with a few exceptions, do not have antibacterial activity.¹⁴ Most plant defensins are involved in defense against a broad range of fungi.^2,3,10,15 They are not only active against phytopathogenic fungi (such as Fusarium culmorum and Botrytis cinerea), but also against baker''s yeast and human pathogenic fungi (such as Candida albicans).² Plant defensins have also been shown to inhibit the growth of roots and root hairs in Arabidopsis thaliana¹⁶ and alter growth of various tomato organs which can assume multiple functions related to defense and development.⁴