��-Defensins in Enteric Innate Immunity: FUNCTIONAL PANETH CELL ��-DEFENSINS IN MOUSE COLONIC LUMEN*

Paneth cells are a secretory epithelial lineage that release dense core granules rich in host defense peptides and proteins from the base of small intestinal crypts. Enteric α-defensins, termed cryptdins (Crps) in mice, are highly abundant in Paneth cell secretions and inherently resistant to proteolysis. Accordingly, we tested the hypothesis that enteric α-defensins of Paneth cell origin persist in a functional state in the mouse large bowel lumen. To test this idea, putative Crps purified from mouse distal colonic lumen were characterized biochemically and assayed in vitro for bactericidal peptide activities. The peptides comigrated with cryptdin control peptides in acid-urea-PAGE and SDS-PAGE, providing identification as putative Crps. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry experiments showed that the molecular masses of the putative α-defensins matched those of the six most abundant known Crps, as well as N-terminally truncated forms of each, and that the peptides contain six Cys residues, consistent with identities as α-defensins. N-terminal sequencing definitively revealed peptides with N termini corresponding to full-length, (des-Leu)-truncated, and (des-Leu-Arg)-truncated N termini of Crps 1–4 and 6. Crps from mouse large bowel lumen were bactericidal in the low micromolar range. Thus, Paneth cell α-defensins secreted into the small intestinal lumen persist as intact and functional forms throughout the intestinal tract, suggesting that the peptides may mediate enteric innate immunity in the colonic lumen, far from their upstream point of secretion in small intestinal crypts.Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs)² are released by epithelial cells onto mucosal surfaces as effectors of innate immunity (1–5). In mammals, most AMPs derive from two major families, the cathelicidins and defensins (6). The defensins comprise the α-, β-, and θ-defensin subfamilies, which are defined by the presence of six cysteine residues paired in characteristic tridisulfide arrays (7). α-Defensins are highly abundant in two primary cell lineages: phagocytic leukocytes, primarily neutrophils, of myeloid origin and Paneth cells, which are secretory epithelial cells located at the base of the crypts of Lieberkühn in the small intestine (8–10). Neutrophil α-defensins are stored in azurophilic granules and contribute to non-oxidative microbial cell killing in phagolysosomes (11, 12), except in mice whose neutrophils lack defensins (13). In the small bowel, α-defensins and other host defense proteins (14–18) are released apically as components of Paneth cell secretory granules in response to cholinergic stimulation and after exposure to bacterial antigens (19). Therefore, the release of Paneth cell products into the crypt lumen is inferred to protect mitotically active crypt cells from colonization by potential pathogens and confer protection against enteric infection (7, 20, 21).Under normal, homeostatic conditions, Paneth cells are not found outside the small bowel, although they may appear ectopically in response to local inflammation throughout the gastrointestinal tract (22, 23). Paneth cell numbers increase progressively throughout the small intestine, occurring at highest numbers in the distal ileum (24). Mouse Paneth cells express numerous α-defensin isoforms, termed cryptdins (Crps) (25), that have broad spectrum antimicrobial activities (6, 26). Collectively, α-defensins constitute approximately seventy percent of the bactericidal peptide activity in mouse Paneth cell secretions (19), selectively killing bacteria by membrane-disruptive mechanisms (27–30). The role of Paneth cell α-defensins in gastrointestinal mucosal immunity is evident from studies of mice transgenic for human enteric α-defensin-5, HD-5, which are immune to infection by orally administered Salmonella enterica sv. typhimurium (S. typhimurium) (31).The biosynthesis of mature, bactericidal α-defensins from their inactive precursors requires activation by lineage-specific proteolytic convertases. In mouse Paneth cells, inactive ∼8.4-kDa Crp precursors are processed intracellularly into microbicidal ∼4-kDa Crps by specific cleavage events mediated by matrix metalloproteinase-7 (MMP-7) (32, 33). MMP-7 null mice exhibit increased susceptibility to systemic S. typhimurium infection and decreased clearance of orally administered non-invasive Escherichia coli (19, 32). Although the α-defensin proregions are sensitive to proteolysis, the mature, disulfide-stabilized peptides resist digestion by their converting enzymes in vitro, whether the convertase is MMP-7 (32), trypsin (34), or neutrophil serine proteinases (35). Because α-defensins resist proteolysis in vitro, we hypothesized that Paneth cell α-defensins resist degradation and remain in a functional state in the large bowel, a complex, hostile environment containing varied proteases of both host and microbial origin.Here, we report on the isolation and characterization of a population of enteric α-defensins from the mouse colonic lumen. Full-length and N-terminally truncated Paneth cell α-defensins were identified and are abundant in the distal large bowel lumen.     

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).     

Conformational Properties of ��-PrP

Prion propagation involves a conformational transition of the cellular form of prion protein (PrP^C) to a disease-specific isomer (PrP^Sc), shifting from a predominantly α-helical conformation to one dominated by β-sheet structure. This conformational transition is of critical importance in understanding the molecular basis for prion disease. Here, we elucidate the conformational properties of a disulfide-reduced fragment of human PrP spanning residues 91–231 under acidic conditions, using a combination of heteronuclear NMR, analytical ultracentrifugation, and circular dichroism. We find that this form of the protein, which similarly to PrP^Sc, is a potent inhibitor of the 26 S proteasome, assembles into soluble oligomers that have significant β-sheet content. The monomeric precursor to these oligomers exhibits many of the characteristics of a molten globule intermediate with some helical character in regions that form helices I and III in the PrP^C conformation, whereas helix II exhibits little evidence for adopting a helical conformation, suggesting that this region is a likely source of interaction within the initial phases of the transformation to a β-rich conformation. This precursor state is almost as compact as the folded PrP^C structure and, as it assembles, only residues 126–227 are immobilized within the oligomeric structure, leaving the remainder in a mobile, random-coil state.Prion diseases, such as Creutzfeldt-Jacob and Gerstmann-Sträussler-Scheinker in humans, scrapie in sheep, and bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle, are fatal neurological disorders associated with the deposition of an abnormally folded form of a host-encoded glycoprotein, prion (PrP)² (1). These diseases may be inherited, arise sporadically, or be acquired through the transmission of an infectious agent (2, 3). The disease-associated form of the protein, termed the scrapie form or PrP^Sc, differs from the normal cellular form (PrP^C) through a conformational change, resulting in a significant increase in the β-sheet content and protease resistance of the protein (3, 4). PrP^C, in contrast, consists of a predominantly α-helical structured domain and an unstructured N-terminal domain, which is capable of binding a number of divalent metals (5–12). A single disulfide bond links two of the main α-helices and forms an integral part of the core of the structured domain (13, 14).According to the protein-only hypothesis (15), the infectious agent is composed of a conformational isomer of PrP (16) that is able to convert other isoforms to the infectious isomer in an autocatalytic manner. Despite numerous studies, little is known about the mechanism of conversion of PrP^C to PrP^Sc. The most coherent and general model proposed thus far is that PrP^C fluctuates between the dominant native state and minor conformations, one or a set of which can self-associate in an ordered manner to produce a stable supramolecular structure composed of misfolded PrP monomers (3, 17). This stable, oligomeric species can then bind to, and stabilize, rare non-native monomer conformations that are structurally complementary. In this manner, new monomeric chains are recruited and the system can propagate.In view of the above model, considerable effort has been devoted to generating and characterizing alternative, possibly PrP^Sc-like, conformations in the hope of identifying common properties or features that facilitate the formation of amyloid oligomers. This has been accomplished either through PrP^Sc-dependent conversion reactions (18–20) or through conversion of PrP^C in the absence of a PrP^Sc template (21–25). The latter approach, using mainly disulfide-oxidized recombinant PrP, has generated a wide range of novel conformations formed under non-physiological conditions where the native state is relatively destabilized. These conformations have ranged from near-native (14, 26, 27), to those that display significant β-sheet content (21, 23, 28–33). The majority of these latter species have shown a high propensity for aggregation, although not all are on-pathway to the formation of amyloid. Many of these non-native states also display some of the characteristics of PrP^Sc, such as increased β-sheet content, protease resistance, and a propensity for oligomerization (28, 29, 31) and some have been claimed to be associated with the disease process (34).One such PrP folding intermediate, termed β-PrP, differs from the majority of studied PrP intermediate states in that it is formed by refolding the PrP molecule from the native α-helical conformation (here termed α-PrP), at acidic pH in a reduced state, with the disulfide bond broken (22, 35). Although no covalent differences between the PrP^C and PrP^Sc have been consistently identified to date, the role of the disulfide bond in prion propagation remains disputed (25, 36–39). β-PrP is rich in β-sheet structure (22, 35), and displays many of the characteristics of a PrP^Sc-like precursor molecule, such as partial resistance to proteinase K digestion, and the ability to form amyloid fibrils in the presence of physiological concentrations of salts (40).The β-PrP species previously characterized, spanning residues 91–231 of PrP, was soluble at low ionic strength buffers and monomeric, according to elution volume on gel filtration (22). NMR analysis showed that it displayed radically different spectra to those of α-PrP, with considerably fewer observable peaks and markedly reduced chemical shift dispersion. Data from circular dichroism experiments showed that fixed side chain (tertiary) interactions were lost, in contrast to the well defined β-sheet secondary structure, and thus in conjunction with the NMR data, indicated that β-PrP possessed a number of characteristics associated with a “molten globule” folding intermediate (22). Such states have been proposed to be important in amyloid and fibril formation (41). Indeed, antibodies raised against β-PrP (e.g. ICSM33) are capable of recognizing native PrP^Sc (but not PrP^C) (42–44). Subsequently, a related study examining the role of the disulfide bond in PrP folding confirmed that a monomeric molten globule-like form of PrP was formed on refolding the disulfide-reduced protein at acidic pH, but reported that, under their conditions, the circular dichroism response interpreted as β-sheet structure was associated with protein oligomerization (45). Indeed, atomic force microscopy on oligomeric full-length β-PrP (residues 23–231) shows small, round particles, showing that it is capable of formation of oligomers without forming fibrils (35). Notably, however, salt-induced oligomeric β-PrP has been shown to be a potent inhibitor of the 26 S proteasome, in a similar manner to PrP^Sc (46). Impairment of the ubiquitin-proteasome system in vivo has been linked to prion neuropathology in prion-infected mice (46).Although the global properties of several PrP intermediate states have been determined (30–32, 35), no information on their conformational properties on a sequence-specific basis has been obtained. Their conformational properties are considered important, as the elucidation of the chain conformation may provide information on the way in which these chains pack in the assembly process, and also potentially provide clues on the mechanism of amyloid assembly and the phenomenon of prion strains. As the conformational fluctuations and heterogeneity of molten globule states give rise to broad NMR spectra that preclude direct observation of their conformational properties by NMR (47–50), here we use denaturant titration experiments to determine the conformational properties of β-PrP, through the population of the unfolded state that is visible by NMR. In addition, we use circular dichroism and analytical ultracentrifugation to examine the global structural properties, and the distribution of multimeric species that are formed from β-PrP.     

In Vitro Characterization of a Recombinant Blh Protein from an Uncultured Marine Bacterium as a ��-Carotene 15,15��-Dioxygenase

Codon optimization was used to synthesize the blh gene from the uncultured marine bacterium 66A03 for expression in Escherichia coli. The expressed enzyme cleaved β-carotene at its central double bond (15,15′) to yield two molecules of all-trans-retinal. The molecular mass of the native purified enzyme was ∼64 kDa as a dimer of 32-kDa subunits. The K_m, k_cat, and k_cat/K_m values for β-carotene as substrate were 37 μm, 3.6 min⁻¹, and 97 mm⁻¹ min⁻¹, respectively. The enzyme exhibited the highest activity for β-carotene, followed by β-cryptoxanthin, β-apo-4′-carotenal, α-carotene, and γ-carotene in decreasing order, but not for β-apo-8′-carotenal, β-apo-12′-carotenal, lutein, zeaxanthin, or lycopene, suggesting that the presence of one unsubstituted β-ionone ring in a substrate with a molecular weight greater than C₃₅ seems to be essential for enzyme activity. The oxygen atom of retinal originated not from water but from molecular oxygen, suggesting that the enzyme was a β-carotene 15,15′-dioxygenase. Although the Blh protein and β-carotene 15,15′-monooxygenases catalyzed the same biochemical reaction, the Blh protein was unrelated to the mammalian β-carotene 15,15′-monooxygenases as assessed by their different properties, including DNA and amino acid sequences, molecular weight, form of association, reaction mechanism, kinetic properties, and substrate specificity. This is the first report of in vitro characterization of a bacterial β-carotene-cleaving enzyme.Vitamin A (retinol) is a fat-soluble vitamin and important for human health. In vivo, the cleavage of β-carotene to retinal is an important step of vitamin A synthesis. The cleavage can proceed via two different biochemical pathways (1, 2). The major pathway is a central cleavage catalyzed by mammalian β-carotene 15,15′-monooxygenases (EC 1.14.99.36). β-Carotene is cleaved by the enzyme symmetrically into two molecules of all-trans-retinal, and retinal is then converted to vitamin A in vivo (3–5). The second pathway is an eccentric cleavage that occurs at double bonds other than the central 15,15′-double bond of β-carotene to produce β-apo-carotenals with different chain lengths, which are catalyzed by carotenoid oxygenases from mammals, plants, and cyanobacteria (6). These β-apo-carotenals are degraded to one molecule of retinal, which is subsequently converted to vitamin A in vivo (2).β-Carotene 15,15′-monooxygenase was first isolated as a cytosolic enzyme by identifying the product of β-carotene cleavage as retinal (7). The characterization of the enzyme and the reaction pathway from β-carotene to retinal were also investigated (4, 8). The enzyme activity has been found in mammalian intestinal mucosa, jejunum enterocytes, liver, lung, kidney, and brain (5, 9, 10). Molecular cloning, expression, and characterization of β-carotene 15,15′-monooxygenase have been reported from various species, including chickens (11), fruit flies (12), humans (13), mice (14), and zebra fishes (15).Other proteins thought to convert β-carotene to retinal include bacterioopsin-related protein (Brp) and bacteriorhodopsin-related protein-like homolog protein (Blh) (16). Brp protein is expressed from the bop gene cluster, which encodes the structural protein bacterioopsin, consisting of at least three genes as follows: bop (bacterioopsin), brp (bacteriorhodopsin-related protein), and bat (bacterioopsin activator) (17). brp genes were reported in Haloarcula marismortui (18), Halobacterium sp. NRC-1 (19), Halobacterium halobium (17), Haloquadratum walsbyi, and Salinibacter ruber (20). Blh protein is expressed from the proteorhodopsin gene cluster, which contains proteorhodopsin, crtE (geranylgeranyl-diphosphate synthase), crtI (phytoene dehydrogenase), crtB (phytoene synthase), crtY (lycopene cyclase), idi (isopentenyl diphosphate isomerase), and blh gene (21). Sources of blh genes were previously reported in Halobacterium sp. NRC-1 (19), Haloarcula marismortui (18), Halobacterium salinarum (22), uncultured marine bacterium 66A03 (16), and uncultured marine bacterium HF10 49E08 (21). β-Carotene biosynthetic genes crtE, crtB, crtI, crtY, ispA, and idi encode the enzymes necessary for the synthesis of β-carotene from isopentenyl diphosphate, and the Idi, IspA, CrtE, CrtB, CrtI, and CrtY proteins have been characterized in vitro (23–28). Blh protein has been proposed to catalyze or regulate the conversion of β-carotene to retinal (29, 30), but there is no direct proof of the enzymatic activity.In this study, we used codon optimization to synthesize the blh gene from the uncultured marine bacterium 66A03 for expression in Escherichia coli, and we performed a detailed biochemical and enzymological characterization of the expressed Blh protein. In addition, the properties of the enzyme were compared with those of mammalian β-carotene 15,15′-monooxygenases.     

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.     

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).