Crystal Structure of the LG1-3 Region of the Laminin ��2 Chain

Laminins are large heterotrimeric glycoproteins with many essential functions in basement membrane assembly and function. Cell adhesion to laminins is mediated by a tandem of five laminin G-like (LG) domains at the C terminus of the α chain. Integrin binding requires an intact LG1-3 region, as well as contributions from the coiled coil formed by the α, β, and γ chains. We have determined the crystal structure at 2.8-Å resolution of the LG1-3 region of the laminin α2 chain (α2LG1-3). The three LG domains adopt typical β-sandwich folds, with canonical calcium binding sites in LG1 and LG2. LG2 and LG3 interact through a substantial interface, but LG1 is completely dissociated from the LG2-3 pair. We suggest that the missing γ chain tail may be required to stabilize the interaction between LG1 and LG2-3 in the biologically active conformation. A global analysis of N-linked glycosylation sites shows that the β-sandwich faces of LG1 are free of carbohydrate modifications in all five laminin α chains, suggesting that these surfaces may harbor the integrin binding site. The α2LG1-3 structure provides the first atomic view of the integrin binding region of laminins.The laminins constitute a major class of cell-adhesive glycoproteins that are intimately involved in basement membrane assembly and function. Their essential roles in embryo development and tissue function have been demonstrated by numerous genetic studies and the analysis of severe human diseases resulting from mutations in laminin genes (1–4). All laminins are heterotrimers composed of three different gene products, termed α, β, and γ chains. At present, 16 mouse and human laminins are known, assembled from five α, three β, and three γ chains. The different laminins have characteristic expression patterns and functions in the embryo and adult animal (1). Laminins are cross-shaped molecules: the three short arms are composed of one chain each, while the long arm is a coiled coil of all three chains, terminating in a tandem of five laminin G-like (LG)² domains, LG1-5, contributed by the α chain (2). Basement membrane assembly requires polymerization via the short arms and cell attachment via the LG1-5 region (5, 6).Cell adhesion to laminins is mediated by multiple receptors: integrins bind to the LG1-3 region, whereas α-dystroglycan, heparan sulfate proteoglycans, and sulfated glycolipids bind predominantly to sites in the LG4-5 pair (7). Integrins are heterodimers with a large extracellular domain consisting of one α and one β chain, which both span the cell membrane and engage in transmembrane signaling (8). Of the 24 mouse and human integrins, the major laminin binding integrins are α3β1, α6β1, α7β1, and α6β4, which have distinct affinities for the different laminin isoforms (9). Although some studies have reported integrin binding or integrin-mediated cell adhesion to isolated LG domains or tandems (10–12), there is strong evidence to suggest that the coiled coil region and an intact γ chain tail are required for full integrin binding to the laminin LG1-3 region (13–18). Compared with integrin binding to collagen and fibronectin, which is understood in atomic detail (19, 20), the laminin-integrin interaction remains poorly characterized in structural terms. We previously determined crystal structures of the LG4-5 region of the laminin α1 and α2 chains and defined their receptor binding sites (21–23). Here, we report the crystal structure of the remainder of the laminin α2 receptor binding region, LG1-3.     

Molecular Interplay between Endostatin, Integrins, and Heparan Sulfate

Endostatin is an endogenous inhibitor of angiogenesis. Although several endothelial cell surface molecules have been reported to interact with endostatin, its molecular mechanism of action is not fully elucidated. We used surface plasmon resonance assays to characterize interactions between endostatin, integrins, and heparin/heparan sulfate. α5β1 and αvβ3 integrins form stable complexes with immobilized endostatin (K_D = ∼1.8 × 10⁻⁸ m, two-state model). Two arginine residues (Arg²⁷ and Arg¹³⁹) are crucial for the binding of endostatin to integrins and to heparin/heparan sulfate, suggesting that endostatin would not bind simultaneously to integrins and to heparan sulfate. Experimental data and molecular modeling support endostatin binding to the headpiece of the αvβ3 integrin at the interface between the β-propeller domain of the αv subunit and the βA domain of the β3 subunit. In addition, we report that α5β1 and αvβ3 integrins bind to heparin/heparan sulfate. The ectodomain of the α5β1 integrin binds to haparin with high affinity (K_D = 15.5 nm). The direct binding between integrins and heparin/heparan sulfate might explain why both heparan sulfate and α5β1 integrin are required for the localization of endostatin in endothelial cell lipid rafts.Endostatin is an endogenous inhibitor of angiogenesis that inhibits proliferation and migration of endothelial cells (1–3). This C-fragment of collagen XVIII has also been shown to inhibit 65 different tumor types and appears to down-regulate pathological angiogenesis without side effects (2). Endostatin regulates angiogenesis by complex mechanisms. It modulates embryonic vascular development by enhancing proliferation, migration, and apoptosis (4). It also has a biphasic effect on the inhibition of endothelial cell migration in vitro, and endostatin therapy reveals a U-shaped curve for antitumor activity (5, 6). Short term exposure of endothelial cells to endostatin may be proangiogenic, unlike long term exposure, which is anti-angiogenic (7). The effect of endostatin depends on its concentration and on the type of endothelial cells (8). It exerts the opposite effects on human umbilical vein endothelial cells and on endothelial cells derived from differentiated embryonic stem cells. Furthermore, two different mechanisms (heparin-dependent and heparin-independent) may exist for the anti-proliferative activity of endostatin depending on the growth factor used to induce cell proliferation (fibroblast growth factor 2 or vascular endothelial growth factor). Its anti-proliferative effect on endothelial cells stimulated by fibroblast growth factor 2 is mediated by the binding of endostatin to heparan sulfate (9), whereas endostatin inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor-induced angiogenesis independently of its ability to bind heparin and heparan sulfate (9, 10). The broad range of molecular targets of endostatin suggests that multiple signaling systems are involved in mediating its anti-angiogenic action (11), and although several endothelial cell surface molecules have been reported to interact with endostatin, its molecular mechanisms of action are not as fully elucidated as they are for other endogenous angiogenesis inhibitors (11).Endostatin binds with relatively low affinity to several membrane proteins including α5β1 and αvβ3 integrins (12), heparan sulfate proteoglycans (glypican-1 and -4) (13), and KDR/Flk1/vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (14), but no high affinity receptor(s) has been identified so far. The identification of molecular interactions established by endostatin at the cell surface is a first step toward the understanding of the mechanisms by which endostatin regulates angiogenesis. We have previously characterized the binding of endostatin to heparan sulfate chains (9). In the present study we have focused on characterizing the interactions between endostatin, α5β1, αvβ3, and αvβ5 integrins and heparan sulfate. Although interactions between several integrins and endostatin have been studied previously in solid phase assays (12) and in cell models (12, 15, 16), no molecular data are available on the binding site of endostatin to the integrins. We found that two arginine residues of endostatin (Arg²⁷ and Arg¹³⁹) participate in binding to integrins and to heparan sulfate, suggesting that endostatin is not able to bind simultaneously to these molecules displayed at the cell surface. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that α5β1, αvβ3, and αvβ5 integrins bind to heparan sulfate. This may explain why both heparan sulfate and α5β1 integrins are required for the localization of endostatin in lipid rafts, in support of the model proposed by Wickström et al. (15).     

Intracellular Trafficking of Presenilin 1 Is Regulated by ��-Amyloid Precursor Protein and Phospholipase D1

Excessive accumulation of β-amyloid peptides in the brain is a major cause for the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease. β-Amyloid is derived from β-amyloid precursor protein (APP) through sequential cleavages by β- and γ-secretases, whose enzymatic activities are tightly controlled by subcellular localization. Delineation of how intracellular trafficking of these secretases and APP is regulated is important for understanding Alzheimer disease pathogenesis. Although APP trafficking is regulated by multiple factors including presenilin 1 (PS1), a major component of the γ-secretase complex, and phospholipase D1 (PLD1), a phospholipid-modifying enzyme, regulation of intracellular trafficking of PS1/γ-secretase and β-secretase is less clear. Here we demonstrate that APP can reciprocally regulate PS1 trafficking; APP deficiency results in faster transport of PS1 from the trans-Golgi network to the cell surface and increased steady state levels of PS1 at the cell surface, which can be reversed by restoring APP levels. Restoration of APP in APP-deficient cells also reduces steady state levels of other γ-secretase components (nicastrin, APH-1, and PEN-2) and the cleavage of Notch by PS1/γ-secretase that is more highly correlated with cell surface levels of PS1 than with APP overexpression levels, supporting the notion that Notch is mainly cleaved at the cell surface. In contrast, intracellular trafficking of β-secretase (BACE1) is not regulated by APP. Moreover, we find that PLD1 also regulates PS1 trafficking and that PLD1 overexpression promotes cell surface accumulation of PS1 in an APP-independent manner. Our results clearly elucidate a physiological function of APP in regulating protein trafficking and suggest that intracellular trafficking of PS1/γ-secretase is regulated by multiple factors, including APP and PLD1.An important pathological hallmark of Alzheimer disease (AD)⁴ is the formation of senile plaques in the brains of patients. The major components of those plaques are β-amyloid peptides (Aβ), whose accumulation triggers a cascade of neurodegenerative steps ending in formation of senile plaques and intraneuronal fibrillary tangles with subsequent neuronal loss in susceptible brain regions (1, 2). Aβ is proteolytically derived from the β-amyloid precursor protein (APP) through sequential cleavages by β-secretase (BACE1), a novel membrane-bound aspartyl protease (3, 4), and by γ-secretase, a high molecular weight complex consisting of at least four components: presenilin (PS), nicastrin (NCT), anterior pharynx-defective-1 (APH-1), and presenilin enhancer-2 (PEN-2) (5, 6). APP is a type I transmembrane protein belonging to a protein family that includes APP-like protein 1 (APLP1) and 2 (APLP2) in mammals (7, 8). Full-length APP is synthesized in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and transported through the Golgi apparatus. Most secreted Aβ peptides are generated within the trans-Golgi network (TGN), also the major site of steady state APP in neurons (9–11). APP can be transported to the cell surface in TGN-derived secretory vesicles if not proteolyzed to Aβ or an intermediate metabolite. At the cell surface APP is either cleaved by α-secretase to produce soluble sAPPα (12) or reinternalized for endosomal/lysosomal degradation (13, 14). Aβ may also be generated in endosomal/lysosomal compartments (15, 16). In contrast to neurotoxic Aβ peptides, sAPPα possesses neuroprotective potential (17, 18). Thus, the subcellular distribution of APP and proteases that process it directly affect the ratio of sAPPα to Aβ, making delineation of the mechanisms responsible for regulating trafficking of all of these proteins relevant to AD pathogenesis.Presenilin (PS) is a critical component of the γ-secretase. Of the two mammalian PS gene homologues, PS1 and PS2, PS1 encodes the major form (PS1) in active γ-secretase (19, 20). Nascent PSs undergo endoproteolytic cleavage to generate an amino-terminal fragment (NTF) and a carboxyl-terminal fragment (CTF) to form a functional PS heterodimer (21). Based on observations that PSs possess two highly conserved aspartate residues indispensable for γ-secretase activity and that specific transition state analogue γ-secretase inhibitors bind to PS1 NTF/CTF heterodimers (5, 22), PSs are believed to be the catalytic component of the γ-secretase complex. PS assembles with three other components, NCT, APH-1, and PEN-2, to form the functional γ-secretase (5, 6). Strong evidence suggests that PS1/γ-secretase resides principally in the ER, early Golgi, TGN, endocytic and intermediate compartments, most of which (except the TGN) are not major subcellular sites for APP (23, 24). In addition to generating Aβ and cleaving APP to release the APP intracellular domain, PS1/γ-secretase cleaves other substrates such as Notch (25), cadherin (26), ErbB4 (27), and CD44 (28), releasing their respective intracellular domains. Interestingly, PS1/γ-secretase cleavage of different substrates seems to occur at different subcellular compartments; APP is mainly cleaved at the TGN and early endosome domains, whereas Notch is predominantly cleaved at the cell surface (9, 11, 29). Thus, perturbing intracellular trafficking of PS1/γ-secretase may alter interactions between PS1/γ-secretase and APP, contributing to either abnormal Aβ generation and AD pathogenesis or decreased access of PS1/γ-secretase to APP such that Aβ production is reduced. However, mechanisms regulating PS1/γ-secretase trafficking warrant further investigation.In addition to participating in γ-secretase activity, PS1 regulates intracellular trafficking of several membrane proteins, including other γ-secretase components (nicastrin, APH-1, and PEN-2) and the substrate APP (reviewed in Ref. 30). Intracellular APP trafficking is highly regulated and requires other factors such as mint family members and SorLA (2). Moreover, we recently found that phospholipase D1 (PLD1), a phospholipid-modifying enzyme that regulates membrane trafficking events, can interact with PS1, and can regulate budding of APP-containing vesicles from the TGN and delivery of APP to the cell surface (31, 32). Interestingly, Kamal et al. (33) identified an axonal membrane compartment that contains APP, BACE1, and PS1 and showed that fast anterograde axonal transport of this compartment is mediated by APP and kinesin-I, implying a traffic-regulating role for APP. Increased APP expression is also shown to decrease retrograde axonal transport of nerve growth factor (34). However, whether APP indeed regulates intracellular trafficking of proteins including BACE1 and PS1/γ-secretase requires further validation. In the present study we demonstrate that intracellular trafficking of PS1, as well as that of other γ-secretase components, but not BACE1, is regulated by APP. APP deficiency promotes cell surface delivery of PS1/γ-secretase complex and facilitates PS1/γ-secretase-mediated Notch cleavage. In addition, we find that PLD1 also regulates intracellular trafficking of PS1 through a different mechanism and more potently than APP.     

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.     

S-Palmitoylation of ��-Secretase Subunits Nicastrin and APH-1

Proteolytic processing of amyloid precursor protein (APP) by β- and γ-secretases generates β-amyloid (Aβ) peptides, which accumulate in the brains of individuals affected by Alzheimer disease. Detergent-resistant membrane microdomains (DRM) rich in cholesterol and sphingolipid, termed lipid rafts, have been implicated in Aβ production. Previously, we and others reported that the four integral subunits of the γ-secretase associate with DRM. In this study we investigated the mechanisms underlying DRM association of γ-secretase subunits. We report that in cultured cells and in brain the γ-secretase subunits nicastrin and APH-1 undergo S-palmitoylation, the post-translational covalent attachment of the long chain fatty acid palmitate common in lipid raft-associated proteins. By mutagenesis we show that nicastrin is S-palmitoylated at Cys⁶⁸⁹, and APH-1 is S-palmitoylated at Cys¹⁸² and Cys²⁴⁵. S-Palmitoylation-defective nicastrin and APH-1 form stable γ-secretase complexes when expressed in knock-out fibroblasts lacking wild type subunits, suggesting that S-palmitoylation is not essential for γ-secretase assembly. Nevertheless, fractionation studies show that S-palmitoylation contributes to DRM association of nicastrin and APH-1. Moreover, pulse-chase analyses reveal that S-palmitoylation is important for nascent polypeptide stability of both proteins. Co-expression of S-palmitoylation-deficient nicastrin and APH-1 in cultured cells neither affects Aβ40, Aβ42, and AICD production, nor intramembrane processing of Notch and N-cadherin. Our findings suggest that S-palmitoylation plays a role in stability and raft localization of nicastrin and APH-1, but does not directly modulate γ-secretase processing of APP and other substrates.Alzheimer disease is the most common among neurodegenerative diseases that cause dementia. This debilitating disorder is pathologically characterized by the cerebral deposition of 39–42 amino acid peptides termed Aβ, which are generated by proteolytic processing of amyloid precursor protein (APP)² by β- and γ-secretases (1, 2). The β-site APP cleavage enzyme 1 cleaves full-length APP within its luminal domain to generate a secreted ectodomain leaving behind a C-terminal fragment (β-CTF). γ-Secretase cleaves β-CTF within the transmembrane domain to release Aβ and APP intracellular C-terminal domain (AICD). γ-Secretase is a multiprotein complex, comprising at least four subunits: presenilins (PS1 and PS2), nicastrin, APH-1, and PEN-2 for its activity (3). PS1 is synthesized as a 42–43-kDa polypeptide and undergoes highly regulated endoproteolytic processing within the large cytoplasmic loop domain connecting putative transmembrane segments 6 and 7 to generate stable N-terminal (NTF) and C-terminal fragments (CTF) by an uncharacterized proteolytic activity (4). This endoproteolytic event has been identified as the activation step in the process of PS1 maturation as it assembles with other γ-secretase subunits (3). Nicastrin is a heavily glycosylated type I membrane protein with a large ectodomain that has been proposed to function in substrate recognition and binding (5), but this putative function has not been confirmed by others (6). APH-1 is a seven-transmembrane protein encoded by two human or three rodent genes that are alternatively spliced (7). Although PS1 (or PS2), nicastrin, APH-1, and PEN-2 are sufficient for γ-secretase processing of APP, a type I membrane protein, termed p23 (also referred toTMP21), was recently identified as a γ-secretase component that modulates γ-secretase activity and regulates secretory trafficking of APP (8, 9).A growing number of type I integral membrane proteins has been identified as γ-secretase substrates within the last few years, including Notch1 homologues, Notch ligands, Delta and Jagged, cell adhesion receptors N- and E-cadherins, low density lipoprotein receptor-related protein, ErbB-4, netrin receptor DCC, and others (10). Mounting evidence suggests that APP processing occurs within cholesterol- and sphingolipid-enriched lipid rafts, which are biochemically defined as detergentresistant membrane microdomains (DRM) (11, 12). Previously we reported that each of the γ-secretase subunits localizes in lipid rafts in post-Golgi and endosome membranes enriched in syntaxin 6 (13). Moreover, loss of γ-secretase activity by gene deletion or exposure to γ-secretase inhibitors results in the accumulation of APP CTFs in lipid rafts indicating that cleavage of APP CTFs likely occurs in raft microdomains (14). In contrast, CTFs derived from Notch1, Jagged2, N-cadherin, and DCC are processed by γ-secretase in non-raft membranes (14). The mechanisms underlying association of γ-secretase subunits with lipid rafts need further clarification to elucidate spatial segregation of amyloidogenic processing of APP in membrane microdomains.Post-translational S-palmitoylation is increasingly recognized as a potential mechanism for regulating raft association, stability, intracellular trafficking, and function of several cytosolic and transmembrane proteins (15–17). S-palmitoylation refers to the addition of 16-carbon palmitoyl moiety to certain cysteine residues through thioester linkage. Cysteines close to transmembrane domains or membrane-associated domains in non-integral membrane proteins are preferred S-palmitoylation sites, although no conserved motif has been identified (18). Palmitoylation modifies numerous neuronal proteins, including postsynaptic density protein PSD-95 (19), a-amino-3-hydroxyl-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid receptors (20), nicotinic α7 receptors (21), neuronal t-SNAREs SNAP-25, synaptobrevin 2 and synaptogagmin (22, 23), neuronal growth-associated protein GAP-43 (24), protein kinase CLICK-III (CL3)/CaMKIγ (25), β-secretase (26), and Huntingtin (27). Although palmitoylation can occur in vitro without the involvement of an enzyme, a family of palmitoyltransferases that specifically catalyze S-palmitoylation has been identified (28, 29).In this study, we have identified S-palmitoylation of γ-secretase subunits nicastrin and APH-1, and characterized its role on DRM association, protein stability, and γ-secretase enzyme activities. We show that nicastrin is S-palmitoylated at Cys⁶⁸⁹, and APH-1 at Cys¹⁸² and Cys²⁴⁵. Mutagenesis of palmitoylation sites results in increased degradation of nascent nicastrin and APH-1 polypeptides and reduced association with DRM. Nevertheless, in cultured cells overexpression of S-palmitoylation-deficient nicastrin and APH-1 does not modulate γ-secretase processing of APP or other substrates.     

New Delhi metallo-��-lactamase-1: local acquisition in Ontario, Canada, and challenges in detection

New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-1 (NDM-1) is a recently identified metallo-β-lactamase that confers resistance to carbapenems and all other β-lactam antibiotics, with the exception of aztreonam. NDM-1 is also associated with resistance to many other classes of antibiotics. The enzyme was first identified in organisms isolated from a patient in Sweden who had previously received medical treatment in India, but it is now recognized as endemic throughout India and Pakistan and has spread worldwide. The gene encoding NDM-1 has been found predominantly in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. We describe the isolation NDM-1–producing organisms from two patients in Toronto, Ontario. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of an organism producing NDM-1 that was locally acquired in Canada. We also discuss the evidence that NDM-1 can affect bacterial species other than E. coli and K. pneumoniae, the limited options for treatment and the difficulty laboratories face in detecting organisms that produce NDM-1.New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-1 (NDM-1) is a metallo-β-lactamase that confers resistance to carbapenems and all other β-lactam antibiotics, with the exception of aztreonam. It is predominantly found in the Enterobacteriaeceae. It was first identified in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from a patient in Sweden who had previously received medical treatment in India. It is now recognized as endemic throughout India and Pakistan and has spread worldwide due to travel, “medical tourism” and the ability of the genetic element encoding the enzyme to transfer between bacteria.^1–3 Three reports of organisms producing NDM-1 in Canada have been published to date. In each instance, the organisms were isolated from the urinary tracts of patients who had recently been admitted to hospitals in India. Two of the isolates were strains of K. pneumoniae and one was a strain of E. coli.^4–6 Additional reports of isolation of organisms producing NDM-1 from patients in Canada have been presented in the lay press.Organisms that produce NDM-1 have been associated with resistance to classes of antibiotics other than the β-lactams, thus severely limiting options for treatment.² Infection control guidance regarding the management of colonization by or infection with organisms that produce carbapenemases, such as NDM-1, have recently been published by Canadian and European authorities.^7–9 An essential component of these recommendations is the rapid and accurate identification of the organisms in a clinical microbiology laboratory. The Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend screening for the production of carbapenemase using the Modified Hodge Test.^10,11 If the result of that test is positive, then the presence and type of carbapenemase can be confirmed by polymerase chain reaction.⁴Herein, we summarize two additional instances in which organisms producing NDM-1 were isolated from patients in Canada and the first where the organism appears to have been acquired in Canada.     

Differential Inhibitor of G�¦� Signaling to AKT and ERK Derived from Phosducin-like Protein: EFFECT ON SPHINGOSINE 1-PHOSPHATE-INDUCED ENDOTHELIAL CELL MIGRATION AND IN VITRO ANGIOGENESIS*

Differential inhibitors of Gβγ-effector regions are required to dissect the biological contribution of specific Gβγ-initiated signaling pathways. Here, we characterize PhLP-M1-G149, a Gβγ-interacting construct derived from phosducin-like protein 1 (PhLP) as a differential inhibitor of Gβγ, which, in endothelial cells, prevented sphingosine 1-phosphate-induced phosphorylation of AKT, glycogen synthase kinase 3β, cell migration, and tubulogenesis, while having no effect on ERK phosphorylation or hepatocyte growth factor-dependent responses. This construct attenuated the recruitment of phosphoinositide 3-kinase γ (PI3Kγ) to the plasma membrane and the signaling to AKT in response to Gβγ overexpression. In coimmunoprecipitation experiments, PhLP-M1-G149 interfered with the interaction between PI3Kγ and Gβγ. Other PhLP-derived constructs interacted with Gβγ but were not effective inhibitors of Gβγ signaling to AKT or ERK. Our results indicate that PhLP-M1-G149 is a suitable tool to differentially modulate the Gβγ-initiated pathway linking this heterodimer to AKT, endothelial cell migration, and in vitro angiogenesis. It can be also useful to further characterize the molecular determinants of the Gβγ-PI3Kγ interaction.Heterotrimeric G protein signaling depends on the actions of GTP-loaded Gα and free Gβγ, the two functional components of the heterotrimer, leading to the generation of second messengers and cell specific functional events (1, 2). Differential inhibitors of Gβγ are required to dissect the biological impact of different Gβγ-dependent effectors. Gβγ actions can be blocked by competition with peptides derived from its effectors. For example, the effect of Gβγ on adenylyl cyclase II, G protein-activated inward rectifier K⁺ channel, G protein-coupled receptor kinase 2, and phospholipase Cβ3, is attenuated by a peptide from adenylyl cyclase II (3). In addition, RACK1 (receptor for activated C kinase 1) selectively inhibits the effect the chemokine receptor CXCR2 on the activation of phospholipase Cβ2 and adenylyl cyclase II in HEK293 cells, without affecting other functions of Gβγ (4). Recently, Smrcka and colleagues characterized the effect of small molecule inhibitors of Gβγ, suggesting their potential application in therapeutic strategies targeting particular Gβγ-dependent pathways (5). Emerging possibilities to target this heterodimer in pathological situations such as inflammation and angiogenesis are based on the role of Gβγ in cell survival and chemotaxis. To the best of our knowledge, no molecular tool is yet available to differentially inhibit Gβγ signaling to AKT.³Gβγ is a key transducer of sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P)-elicited angiogenic signals promoting endothelial cell migration, proliferation, and survival (6–12). Multiple Gβγ-dependent effectors are potentially involved in the molecular events required for endothelial cell migration. These include lipid kinases such as PI3Kγ and PI3Kβ (13), and a novel family of Rac guanine nucleotide exchange factors, represented by P-REX1, which is activated by Gβγ and phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5-trisphosphate (14–16). Gβγ signaling is frequently attributed to pertussis toxin-sensitive G_i coupled receptors, and it has been consistently revealed by the antagonistic effect of the carboxyl-terminal region of G protein-coupled receptor kinase 2, which sequesters Gβγ thereby inhibiting all its intracellular actions (17). In addition, mutational analysis of Gβ revealed that different residues, all of them mapping to the interface of contact between Gβγ and Gα, are important for the activation of distinct Gβγ effector molecules (18).Phosducin was originally identified as a phosphoprotein restricted to the retina and pineal gland forming a complex with Gβγ (19, 20). It was considered a protein kinase A-sensitive regulator of G protein-mediated signaling (21, 22). Further studies identified a family of phosducin-like proteins (PhLPs) (23, 24). Phosducin and Gα share affinity for the same region of Gβγ, as revealed by the structural analysis of Gβγ in complex with Gα or phosducin and by in vitro binding experiments (25). This area of interaction includes some of the residues considered necessary for the activation of Gβγ-dependent effectors (18, 26). It was initially postulated that phosducin and related proteins, by interfering with the availability of free Gβγ, exert an inhibitory role on Gβγ signaling. However, recent genetic evidence raised an apparently conflicting situation; the knockout of PhLP in fungi resulted in a phenotype equivalent to the absence of Gβγ, contrary to its expected role as an inhibitor (27). Novel experimental evidence indicated that PhLP has a positive effect on Gβγ signaling due to its participation in the assembly of the heterodimer, helping to stabilize free Gβ subunits leaving the ribosome after synthesis (28–31).Despite the positive role of full-length PhLP in the assembly of Gβγ heterodimers, it is still possible that different fragments of this protein, which could retain their interaction with distinct regions of Gβγ, might function as inhibitors of Gβγ signaling. Accordingly, we characterized here the effect of different PhLP-derived constructs on the signaling pathways elicited by S1P or HGF in endothelial cells. In addition, we explored the mechanism by which PhLP-M1-G149 interferes with Gβγ preventing the activation of AKT.     

Loss of ��-Dystroglycan Laminin Binding in Epithelium-derived Cancers Is Caused by Silencing of LARGE

The interaction between epithelial cells and the extracellular matrix is crucial for tissue architecture and function and is compromised during cancer progression. Dystroglycan is a membrane receptor that mediates interactions between cells and basement membranes in various epithelia. In many epithelium-derived cancers, β-dystroglycan is expressed, but α-dystroglycan is not detected. Here we report that α-dystroglycan is correctly expressed and trafficked to the cell membrane but lacks laminin binding as a result of the silencing of the like-acetylglucosaminyltransferase (LARGE) gene in a cohort of highly metastatic epithelial cell lines derived from breast, cervical, and lung cancers. Exogenous expression of LARGE in these cancer cells restores the normal glycosylation and laminin binding of α-dystroglycan, leading to enhanced cell adhesion and reduced cell migration in vitro. Our findings demonstrate that LARGE repression is responsible for the defects in dystroglycan-mediated cell adhesion that are observed in epithelium-derived cancer cells and point to a defect of dystroglycan glycosylation as a factor in cancer progression.Normal epithelial cells are tightly associated with one another and with the underlying basement membrane to maintain tissue architecture and function. During cancer progression, primitive cancer cells escape from this control by modifying the binding affinities of their cell membrane receptors. Several receptors have been described as important for this process. Of these, the integrins are the best studied (1). The receptor dystroglycan has been reported to be required for the development and maintenance of epithelial tissues (2, 3). A direct requirement for dystroglycan in epithelia is further demonstrated by the profound effect that loss of dystroglycan expression has on cell polarity and laminin binding in cultured mammary epithelial cells (4, 5). However, dystroglycan is not only important in the establishment and maintenance of epithelial structure. Associations have also been made between the loss of α-dystroglycan immunoreactivity and cancer progression in tumors of epithelial origin, including breast, colon, cervix, and prostate cancers (4, 6–9). The dystroglycan loss of function could thus serve as an effective means by which cancerous cells modify their adhesion to the extracellular matrix (ECM).²Dystroglycan is a ubiquitously expressed cell membrane protein that plays a key function in cellular integrity, linking the intracellular cytoskeleton to the extracellular matrix. The dystroglycan gene encodes a preprotein that is cleaved into two peptides (10). The C-terminal component, known as β-dystroglycan, is embedded within the cell membrane, whereas the N-terminal component, α-dystroglycan, is present within the extracellular periphery but remains associated with β-dystroglycan through non-covalent bonds. β-Dystroglycan binds to actin (11), dystrophin (11), utrophin (11), and Grb2 (12) through its C-terminal intracellular domain. α-Dystroglycan, on the other hand, binds to ECM proteins that contain laminin globular domains including laminins (13, 14), agrin (15), and perlecan (16), as well as to the transmembrane protein neurexin (17). α-Dystroglycan is extensively decorated by three different types of glycan modifications: mucin type O-glycosylation, O-mannosylation, and N-glycosylation. The state of α-dystroglycan glycosylation has been shown to be critical for the ability of the protein to bind to laminin globular domain-containing proteins of the ECM (18).Previous studies of epithelium-derived cancers (4, 9) demonstrated that the loss of immunoreactivity of α-dystroglycan antibodies correlates with tumor grade and poor prognosis. This reduced detection of α-dystroglycan, however, is based on a loss of α-dystroglycan reactivity to antibodies (known as IIH6 and VIA4-1) that recognize the laminin-binding glyco-epitope of α-dystroglycan, i.e. the protein is only functional when it is glycosylated in such a way (henceforth, referred to as functional glycosylation). However, in most of the cancer samples that have been studied to date, β-dystroglycan is expressed at normal levels at the cell membrane. Thus, the aforementioned cancer-associated loss of α-dystroglycan expression may reflect a failure in the post-translational processing of dystroglycan rather than in the synthesis of α-dystroglycan itself.A similar defect in dystroglycan has been reported in a group of congenital muscular dystrophies (19). This spectrum of human developmental syndromes involves the brain, eye, and skeletal muscle and shows a dramatic gradient of phenotypic severity that ranges from the most devastating in Walker-Warburg syndrome to the least severe in limb-girdle muscular dystrophy. Six distinct known and putative glycosyltransferases have been shown to underlie these syndromes: protein O-mannosyltransferase 1 (POMT1), protein O-mannosyltransferase 2 (POMT2), protein O-mannose β-1,2-acetylglucosaminyltransferase 1 (POMGnT1), like acetylglucosaminyltransferase (LARGE), Fukutin, and Fukutin-related protein (FKRP) (20–25). Indeed, all muscular dystrophy patients with mutations in any of these genes fail to express the functionally glycosylated α-dystroglycan epitope that is recognized by the IIH6 and VIA4-1 antibodies.To investigate the molecular mechanism responsible for the loss of α-dystroglycan in epithelium-derived cancers and its role in metastatic progression, we examined the expression and glycosylation status of α-dystroglycan in a group of breast, cervical, and lung cancer cell lines. Here we report that although α-dystroglycan is expressed in the metastatic cell lines MDA-MB-231, HeLa, H1299, and H2030, it is not functionally glycosylated. In screening these cell lines for expression of the six known α-dystroglycan-modifying proteins, we observed that only one, LARGE, was extensively down-regulated. We also report that the ectopic restoration of LARGE expression in these cell lines led not only to the production of a functional dystroglycan but also to the reversion of certain characteristics associated with invasiveness, namely cell attachment to ECM proteins and cell migration.     

Structural and Mechanistic Insights into Lunatic Fringe from a Kinetic Analysis of Enzyme Mutants

The Notch receptor is critical for proper development where it orchestrates numerous cell fate decisions. The Fringe family of β1,3-N-acetylglucosaminyltransferases are regulators of this pathway. Fringe enzymes add N-acetylglucosamine to O-linked fucose on the epidermal growth factor repeats of Notch. Here we have analyzed the reaction catalyzed by Lunatic Fringe (Lfng) in detail. A mutagenesis strategy for Lfng was guided by a multiple sequence alignment of Fringe proteins and solutions from docking an epidermal growth factor-like O-fucose acceptor substrate onto a homology model of Lfng. We targeted three main areas as follows: residues that could help resolve where the fucose binds, residues in two conserved loops not observed in the published structure of Manic Fringe, and residues predicted to be involved in UDP-N-acetylglucosamine (UDP-GlcNAc) donor specificity. We utilized a kinetic analysis of mutant enzyme activity toward the small molecule acceptor substrate 4-nitrophenyl-α-l-fucopyranoside to judge their effect on Lfng activity. Our results support the positioning of O-fucose in a specific orientation to the catalytic residue. We also found evidence that one loop closes off the active site coincident with, or subsequent to, substrate binding. We propose a mechanism whereby the ordering of this short loop may alter the conformation of the catalytic aspartate. Finally, we identify several residues near the UDP-GlcNAc-binding site, which are specifically permissive toward UDP-GlcNAc utilization.Defects in Notch signaling have been implicated in numerous human diseases, including multiple sclerosis (1), several forms of cancer (2-4), cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with sub-cortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (5), and spondylocostal dysostosis (SCD)³ (6-8). The transmembrane Notch signaling receptor is activated by members of the DSL (Delta, Serrate, Lag2) family of ligands (9, 10). In the endoplasmic reticulum, O-linked fucose glycans are added to the epidermal growth factor-like (EGF) repeats of the Notch extracellular domain by protein O-fucosyltransferase 1 (11-13). These O-fucose monosaccharides can be elongated in the Golgi apparatus by three highly conserved β1,3-N-acetylglucosaminyltransferases of the Fringe family (Lunatic (Lfng), Manic (Mfng), and Radical Fringe (Rfng) in mammals) (14-16). The formation of this GlcNAc-β1,3-Fuc-α1, O-serine/threonine disaccharide is necessary and sufficient for subsequent elongation to a tetrasaccharide (15, 19), although elongation past the disaccharide in Drosophila is not yet clear (20, 21). Elongation of O-fucose by Fringe is known to potentiate Notch signaling from Delta ligands and inhibit signaling from Serrate ligands (22). Delta ligands are termed Delta-like (Delta-like1, -2, and -4) in mammals, and the homologs of Serrate are known as Jagged (Jagged1 and -2) in mammals. The effects of Fringe on Drosophila Notch can be recapitulated in Notch ligand in vitro binding assays using purified components, suggesting that the elongation of O-fucose by Fringe alters the binding of Notch to its ligands (21). Although Fringe also appears to alter Notch-ligand interactions in mammals, the effects of elongation of the glycan past the O-fucose monosaccharide is more complicated and appears to be cell type-, receptor-, and ligand-dependent (for a recent review see Ref. 23).The Fringe enzymes catalyze the transfer of GlcNAc from the donor substrate UDP-α-GlcNAc to the acceptor fucose, forming the GlcNAc-β1,3-Fuc disaccharide (14-16). They belong to the GT-A-fold of inverting glycosyltransferases, which includes N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase I and β1,4-galactosyltransferase I (17, 18). The mechanism is presumed to proceed through the abstraction of a proton from the acceptor substrate by a catalytic base (Asp or Glu) in the active site. This creates a nucleophile that attacks the anomeric carbon of the nucleotide-sugar donor, inverting its configuration from α (on the nucleotide sugar) to β (in the product) (24, 25). The enzyme then releases the acceptor substrate modified with a disaccharide and UDP. The Mfng structure (26) leaves little doubt as to the identity of the catalytic residue, which in all likelihood is aspartate 289 in mouse Lfng (we will use numbering for mouse Lunatic Fringe throughout, unless otherwise stated). The structure of Mfng with UDP-GlcNAc soaked into the crystals (26) showed density only for the UDP portion of the nucleotide-sugar donor and no density for two loops flanking either side of the active site. The presence of flexible loops that become ordered upon substrate binding is a common observation with glycosyltransferases in the GT-A fold family (18, 25). Density for the entire donor was observed in the structure of rabbit N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase I (27). In this case, ordering of a previously disordered loop upon UDP-GlcNAc binding may have contributed to increased stability of the donor. In the case of bovine β1,4-galactosyltransferase I, a section of flexible random coil from the apo-structure was observed to change its conformation to α-helical upon donor substrate binding (28). Both loops in Lfng are highly conserved, and we have mutated a number of residues in each to test the hypothesis that they interact with the substrates. The mutagenesis strategy was also guided by docking of an EGF-O-fucose acceptor substrate into the active site of the Lfng model as well as comparison of the Lfng model with a homology model of the β1,3-glucosyltransferase (β3GlcT) that modifies O-fucose on thrombospondin type 1 repeats (29, 30). The β3GlcT is predicted to be a GT-A fold enzyme related to the Fringe family (17, 18, 29).     

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).