|
J Biol Chem, Vol. 274, Issue 42, 30169-30181, October 15, 1999
Quantification of Short Term Signaling by the Epidermal Growth
Factor Receptor*
Boris N.
Kholodenko §,
Oleg V.
Demin ¶,
Gisela
Moehren , and
Jan B.
Hoek
From the Department of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell
Biology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 and the ¶ A. N. Belozersky Institute of Physico-Chemical Biology,
Moscow State University, Moscow 119899, Russia
 |
ABSTRACT |
During the past decade, our knowledge of
molecular mechanisms involved in growth factor signaling has
proliferated almost explosively. However, the kinetics and control of
information transfer through signaling networks remain poorly
understood. This paper combines experimental kinetic analysis and
computational modeling of the short term pattern of cellular responses
to epidermal growth factor (EGF) in isolated hepatocytes. The
experimental data show transient tyrosine phosphorylation of the EGF
receptor (EGFR) and transient or sustained response patterns in
multiple signaling proteins targeted by EGFR. Transient responses
exhibit pronounced maxima, reached within 15-30 s of EGF stimulation
and followed by a decline to relatively low (quasi-steady-state)
levels. In contrast to earlier suggestions, we demonstrate that the
experimentally observed transients can be accounted for without
requiring receptor-mediated activation of specific tyrosine
phosphatases, following EGF stimulation. The kinetic model predicts how
the cellular response is controlled by the relative levels and activity
states of signaling proteins and under what conditions activation
patterns are transient or sustained. EGFR signaling patterns appear to
be robust with respect to variations in many elemental rate constants
within the range of experimentally measured values. On the other hand,
we specify which changes in the kinetic scheme, rate constants, and
total amounts of molecular factors involved are incompatible with the experimentally observed kinetics of signal transfer. Quantitation of
signaling network responses to growth factors allows us to assess how
cells process information controlling their growth and differentiation.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The epidermal growth factor receptor
(EGFR)1 belongs to the family
of protein-tyrosine kinase receptors, which regulate cell growth,
survival, proliferation, and differentiation (1-3). EGFR is activated
by binding of epidermal growth factor (EGF) or another EGF family
factor (e.g. transforming growth factor- ). This binding causes EGFR dimerization and rapid activation of its intrinsic tyrosine
kinase followed by autophosphorylation of multiple tyrosine residues in
the cytoplasmic receptor domain. Tyrosine phosphorylation of EGFR
generates a biochemical message for a battery of cytoplasmic target
proteins that contain characteristic protein domains, such as Src
homology 2 (SH2) domains and phosphotyrosine binding domains (e.g. see Refs. 4-6). Binding and
phosphorylation/activation of these proteins, e.g. growth
factor receptor-binding protein 2 (Grb2), Src homology and collagen
domain protein (Shc), phospholipase C- (PLC ), and others lead to
a further propagation of the signal through multiple interacting pathways.
Several signaling pathways emanating from EGFR involve activation of
SOS (Son of Sevenless homolog protein), the downstream target of which
is Ras protein. Mitogenic signaling by EGFR is associated with
Ras-dependent stimulation of mitogen-activated protein
kinase cascades, leading to phosphorylation of both cytoplasmic and
nuclear targets. Although a predominant role of EGFR and other tyrosine
kinase receptors is stimulation of cell growth and proliferation, recent data suggest that the physiological outcome of tyrosine kinase
signaling strongly depends on the timing, duration, and amplitude of
activation of signaling components (2, 7, 8).
Initially, signaling pathways were viewed as linear relay routes, which
simply transmitted and amplified signals. Now it is increasingly
appreciated that signaling responses are shaped by multiple
interactions of many components of signaling networks (9). A subtle
difference in input signals and/or interaction kinetics may result in
differential response patterns and, eventually, in alterations in gene
expression by signal-regulated transcription factors. For instance,
variable strength of Raf-1 activation (the first kinase of the
mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade, a direct downstream target of
Ras) has been linked to such opposing responses as the induction of DNA
synthesis and growth inhibition (10-13). Experiments with PC12 cells
have shown that the specificity of cellular responses depends on the
duration of activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase (Erk)
(the terminal kinase of the mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade),
e.g. whether Erk activation is transient or sustained (2,
14-16). Therefore, signaling through the same pathway in the same cell
type may result in completely different outputs depending on the
amplitude and persistence of activation of signaling intermediates,
i.e. on their kinetic behavior.
The kinetics (i.e. the transient and steady-state behavior)
of the cellular response to EGF depends on many factors, including the
number of receptors displayed on the cell surface; the concentration of
the growth factor, docking, and target proteins; and their initial
activity states. Moreover, other signaling pathways that share or
interact with one or more components of the EGFR pathway can influence
the kinetic pattern of EGFR signaling. Although a large body of data
describes EGFR signaling at the molecular level, the manner in which
the complex pattern of cellular responses to EGF is controlled remains
poorly understood. An important reason is the lack of a quantitative
description of EGFR signaling network, which hampers a careful
examination of the influence of multiple factors. Detailed
understanding of the dynamics of complex cellular responses requires a
combination of experimental and computational approaches (17-19).
The early events of EGFR signaling, such as EGF binding and receptor
autophosphorylation, binding and activation of Grb2, phosphorylation of
Shc and PLC , and activation of SOS, develop in a time frame of
seconds. There are slower processes involving receptor internalization
and its subsequent degradation in lysosomes, which have an important
role in EGF-induced signaling (20-22). Activation and binding of
ligands causes the recruitment of EGFR to clathrin-coated pits and
transfer to endosomes. These processes are developing over time frames
of minutes to hours, i.e. much more slowly than early EGFR
signaling events, which evolve to a quasi-steady-state level in a time
scale of seconds. Here we will study the short term response (up to
120 s) to EGF stimulation.
The aim of the present study is to give a quantitative description of
the short term EGFR signaling based on a detailed kinetic scheme of the
interactions of proteins and other signaling molecules involved. To
this end, we combine a computational approach with experimental
analysis of the time course of activation/phosphorylation of different
components of the EGFR signaling pathway in isolated rat hepatocytes.
We test the model against the experimental data to gain a better
understanding of the factors governing the kinetics of phosphorylated
signaling intermediates. In particular, the model explains why the
total phosphorylated EGFR and its complexes with target proteins
exhibit pronounced maxima and then descend to sustained levels, whereas
the total concentration of phosphorylated forms of Shc and the
concentrations of Shc-Grb2 and Shc-Grb2-SOS complexes increase
monotonically, reaching a quasi-steady-state level. We demonstrate
which enzyme activities and kinetic constants exert significant control
over the EGFR signaling and how the transient behavior is regulated.
This analysis will enable us to assess how the EGFR signaling system
can process information and generate distinct outputs in response to stimuli.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Materials
Antibodies against EGFR (sheep polyclonal) and PLC (mixed
mouse monoclonals) were obtained from Upstate Biotechnology, Inc. (Lake
Placid, NY); anti-Shc (rabbit polyclonal or mouse monoclonal), anti-Grb2 (mouse monoclonal), and anti-phosphotyrosine-horseradish peroxidase (type RC20H) were from Transduction Laboratories (Lexington, KY). Anti-phosphotyrosine-agarose conjugates (mouse monoclonal) were
obtained from Sigma, and anti-IgG-horseradish peroxidase conjugates
were from Pierce. Gradient gels and nitrocellulose membranes were from
Bio-Rad, and detection of the Western blots was done by
chemiluminescence using Supersignal reagent (Pierce). Collagenase type
I was from Worthington, and bovine serum albumin fraction V and the
Complete protease inhibitor mixture were obtained from Roche Molecular
Biochemicals. EGF (receptor grade), protein G-Sepharose, and protein
A-Sepharose were from Sigma. Other chemicals and biochemicals were
obtained from Sigma or Fisher.
Cell Preparation and Incubation Conditions
Isolated hepatocytes were prepared from the livers of male
Harlan Sprague Dawley rats by collagenase perfusion as described previously (23). Cell preparations were suspended in a modified Krebs-Ringer bicarbonate buffer (pH 7.4) containing NaCl (127 mM), NaHCO3 (25 mM), KCl (4 mM), MgCl2 (1.2 mM), potassium
phosphate (1.2 mM), Hepes (10 mM, pH 7.4),
CaCl2 (1.0 mM), and glucose (15 mM)
and stored on ice until use. Incubations were carried out in a shaking
water bath at 37 °C in capped plastic flasks in a gas phase of 95%
O2, 5% CO2. Cells were preincubated at a cell density of 107 cells/ml in Krebs-Ringer bicarbonate buffer
for 45 min to optimize receptor presentation on the cell surface, prior
to stimulation with different concentrations of EGF (24). Reactions
were stopped after 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 120 s by a 1:1 dilution
of a sample of the incubation mixture with ice-cold lysis buffer
containing (final concentrations) Hepes (50 mM, pH 7.5),
NaCl (150 mM), EGTA (5 mM), glycerol (10%),
Triton X-100 (1%), NaF (100 mM), sodium o-vanadate (0.2 mM), sodium pyrophosphate (10 mM), and the commercially available protease inhibitor
mixture Complete (Roche Molecular Biochemicals). After 10 min on ice,
lysates were centrifuged in the cold room (4 °C) in an Eppendorf
microcentrifuge 5 min at top speed to remove the Triton-insoluble
fraction and either used immediately or stored at 70 °C until use.
In some experiments, cells were lysed with a digitonin-containing
buffer instead of with Triton X-100. The concentration of digitonin was
150 µg/ml, equivalent to 5-7 µg/mg of protein, sufficient to
achieve maximal release of soluble proteins, as determined from the
release of lactate dehydrogenase. Other treatment conditions were
similar to those described above. The particulate fraction from
digitonin-treated cells was further extracted by resuspending in lysis
buffer containing 0.1% SDS plus 1% deoxycholate.
Immunoprecipitation Conditions, Gel Electrophoresis, and Western
Blotting
Immunoprecipitations were carried out by a modification of the
procedures described in Ref. 25. Antibody titration experiments established that maximally effective (>90%) immunoprecipitation of
both unphosphorylated and phosphorylated forms of the relevant proteins
was achieved at high antibody:antigen ratio. Based on these titration
studies, equal volumes (25-100 µl) of lysate and undiluted
commercial antibody solution were mixed and incubated for a minimum of
4 h at 4 °C with continuous mixing. Immune complexes with
anti-EGFR antibody (sheep, polyclonal IgG) and PLC- (mixed mouse
monoclonal) were captured by the addition of 15 µl of protein G-Sepharose added during the final hour, and anti-SHC (rabbit polyclonal IgG) complexes were captured with 15 µl of protein A-Sepharose. Immune complexes were washed three times with HNTG buffer
(Hepes (20 mM, pH 7.5), NaCl (150 mM), Triton
X-100 (0.1%), glycerol (10%), sodium o-vanadate (0.2 mM), NaF (10 mM), and the Complete protease
inhibitor mixture). Immunoprecipitates and full lysate samples were
dissolved in Laemmli buffer (20% glycerol, 3% SDS, 3%
-mercaptoethanol, 10 mM EDTA, 0.05% bromphenol blue) and placed in a boiling water bath for 5 min. Proteins were separated by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis on 4-20% gradient gels electroblotted onto nitrocellulose membranes. Membranes were blocked with 1.5% bovine serum albumin in TBST (Tris 10 mM, pH
8.0, 150 mM NaCl, 0.05% Triton X-100) at room temperature.
For Western blotting, all antibodies were diluted in TBST according to
the manufacturer's recommendations. The membranes were incubated with primary antibody for 1 h at room temperature and then with
horseradish peroxidase-conjugated secondary antibody for 30 min and
washed four times for 10 min with TBST before detection by chemiluminescence.
Quantitative analysis of tyrosine phosphorylation of signaling proteins
following EGF stimulation was carried out by the following procedure.
Anti-phosphotyrosine (anti-Tyr(P)) immunoprecipitates of each sample
were loaded onto the gels side-by-side with the corresponding samples
of EGFR or PLC- immunoprecipitates, after appropriate dilution with
HNTG buffer to achieve a signal intensity in the same range as that of
the corresponding tyrosine-phosphorylated protein on the Western blot.
Alternatively, anti-Tyr(P) immunoprecipitates were loaded side by side
with a sample of the corresponding total lysate (after appropriate
dilution with HNTG), and the resulting nitrocellulose membranes were
probed with antibodies to EGFR or SHC. This procedure allowed for
quantitation of tyrosine phosphorylation of specific target proteins by
normalization to the total target protein in the lysate. A similar
strategy was followed to assess the extent of Grb2 coprecipitation with
either EGFR or SHC proteins.
After chemiluminescence, a range of different film exposures was made
for each membrane to avoid overexposure and to maintain band densities
within a linear range for densitometric quantitation. Protein bands
were identified according to their molecular weights and by comparison
with specific immunoprecipitates. Bands were analyzed densitometrically
using a Sharp JX-330 gel scanner and quantified by the Image Master ID
software (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech). Results from multiple (4-8)
scans were averaged and several (three or four) immunoprecipitates from
a single experiment were compared. Data are presented as the mean ± S.E. for different estimates from a single experiment,
representative of three or more similar experiments.
Kinetic Analysis
Schematic Representation of Protein-Protein Interactions Induced
by EGF Binding
For a quantitative analysis of the EGFR signaling network, an
adequate description is required of the reactions that contribute to
the experimentally detected protein-protein interactions and tyrosine
phosphorylation events. The kinetic scheme presented in Fig. 1 forms
the basis for the integration of the experimental study and the
computational analysis.
In step 1, EGF binds to the extracellular domain of the monomeric EGFR
(designated as R in the kinetic scheme) and forms the EGF·EGFR
complex (designated as Ra). EGF binding drives the
association of two receptor monomers into an activated receptor dimer
(step 2). Recent studies (26, 27) have shown that a 2:2 (EGF:EGFR) complex is the predominant form of the receptor dimer (designated as
R2). The phosphorylation of tyrosine residues by receptor
tyrosine kinase is combined into a single step 3, yielding a form
designated as RP. Although multiple tyrosine residues on the
cytoplasmic tail of the receptor are targets for autophosphorylation,
we did not attempt to distinguish experimentally between different
phosphorylated forms of the receptor, and, as we will discuss below,
the initial computational analysis also does not require a functional
distinction to be made. Step 4 is the dephosphorylation of RP,
catalyzed by one or more phosphotyrosine phosphatase(s) (28, 29).
Tyrosine phosphorylation triggers the binding of cytoplasmic proteins
to the receptor. We consider here three proteins that directly interact
with phosphotyrosine residues on the receptor, namely Grb2, Shc, and
PLC (4). Although several other proteins bind to the activated EGFR,
it is helpful to consider a limited number of target proteins as an
initial core model. It is not entirely clear whether these multiple
proteins can bind simultaneously to their target phosphotyrosine
residues on the same receptor molecule or whether the binding of, for
example, Grb2 to the receptor hampers the binding of PLC
(competitive binding). The model depicted in Fig. 1 considers the
binding of cytoplasmic proteins to occur by a competitive mechanism.
The advantage of a model with competitive binding is that it allows us
to consider receptor phosphorylation as a single step rather than
monitoring different phosphorylated forms of R2 as distinct
entities. We also assume that, when Grb2, Shc, or PLC are bound to
EGFR, the corresponding phosphotyrosine residues are not available to
receptor phosphotyrosine phosphatases. The implications of these
assumptions for the dynamic pattern of EGFR signaling will be
considered below. Which mechanism of interactions of EGFR and adapter
proteins occurs in vivo remains to be identified.
The entire network of reactions of the receptor with its cytoplasmic
target proteins can now be divided into three coupled cycles of
interactions with Grb2, PLC , and Shc, respectively. One receptor
cycle includes the binding of PLC (step 5 in Fig. 1, resulting in
the formation of the complex designated as R-PL) and phosphorylation of
PLC at two tyrosine residues by receptor tyrosine kinase (step 6, yielding the complex R-PLP). The partial cycle of the receptor is
completed by the dissociation of R-PLP into phosphorylated
phospholipase C (PLC P) and RP in step 7. Tyrosine phosphorylation
of PLC is thought to be necessary for its activation and the
subsequent formation of inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate and generation of
a Ca2+ response (30, 31). PLC P can translocate to
cytoskeletal or membrane structures (step 25), which yields bound
PLC P-I (32, 33).
Another partial receptor cycle starts with the binding of Grb2 to a
receptor phosphotyrosine (step 9, forming the complex R-G). The complex
of the EGF receptor with the adapter protein Grb2 is a branch point
that leads to several signaling pathways through binding to different
potential targets. Here we consider the link of EGFR to the Ras
signaling pathway. The SH3 domains of Grb2 bind to proline-rich regions
of the Ras-specific GDP-GTP exchange factor SOS. In step 10, SOS binds
to the receptor-bound Grb2, resulting in the formation of the ternary
complex R-G-S. The binding of SOS to the EGFR-Grb2 complex localizes
SOS in the vicinity of Ras, which is anchored to the cell membrane. The
ternary complex R-G-S dissociates (step 11), yielding the
phosphorylated receptor (RP) and the complex G-S, which further
dissociates into Grb2 and SOS (step 12).
The final EGFR cycle considered here includes the formation of the
complex of Shc with EGFR (R-SH) (step 13 in Fig. 1) and its subsequent
phosphorylation at Tyr317 by receptor tyrosine kinase (step
14, yielding R-ShP). This allows Grb2 to also bind to EGFR indirectly
through phosphorylated Shc, forming a ternary complex (R-Sh-G) (step
17). There are three embedded EGFR cycles that involve Shc protein. The
shortest of these cycles is completed in step 15, where the complex
R-ShP dissociates, yielding the phosphorylated receptor (RP) and
phosphorylated Shc (ShP). The second cycle is completed in step 18, where the ternary complex R-Sh-G dissociates into RP and the complex
Sh-G. The longest of the three embedded cycles includes SOS binding to
R-Sh-G, leading to the formation of a four-protein complex, R-Sh-G-S
(step 19). The complex R-Sh-G-S can also be formed by association of
R-ShP and G-S complexes in step 24. The third cycle is completed in
step 20, where the complex R-Sh-G-S dissociates, releasing the
phosphorylated receptor (RP) and the complex Sh-G-S.
It is unknown whether the binding of the phosphorylated target proteins
to EGFR protects them against specific phosphatases. The kinetic scheme
of Fig. 1 assumes that PLC P and ShP are dephosphorylated only after
they dissociate from the receptor (steps 16 and 8). However, this
assumption is not critical, provided the dephosphorylation of bound
target proteins proceeds no faster than that of their unbound
phosphorylated forms.
After phosphorylated Shc dissociates from the receptor (ShP), it
retains its ability to bind various SH2 domain-containing targets. The
remaining steps in Fig. 1 constitute the cycle of ShP. The scheme shows
that Grb2 binds to ShP, forming the complex Sh-G (step 21). The GDP-GTP
exchange factor SOS is able to bind to Grb2 complexed with
phosphorylated Shc, forming the ternary complex Sh-G-S (step 22). The
dissociation of the complex Sh-G-S yields G-S and ShP (step 23).
Derivation of a Kinetic Model
Kinetic Equations--
In order to integrate the experimental
observations in a description of the dynamic behavior of the EGFR
signaling network, we converted the reaction scheme of Fig. 1 into a
set of mathematical equations known as chemical kinetics equations
(34). For changes with time of the concentration of any component,
e.g. the receptor form RP, one can write the following.
|
(Eq. 1)
|
Here the total rate is the sum of the rates that produce or
consume RP according to the kinetic diagram. For instance, the total
rate of RP production equals the sum of the (net) rates of six steps
(steps 3, 7, 11, 15, 18, and 20; see Fig. 1). A complete set of
chemical kinetic equations describing the reactions of Fig. 1 is
provided in Table I.
Kinetic equations are usually written in terms of concentrations
(not of mole numbers), since the reaction rates are functions of
concentrations. If the same compound participates in reactions taking
place in different compartments with different volumes, the effective
concentration of that compound will be different depending on the
volume of the corresponding compartment. Step 1 (EGF binding to EGFR)
could be considered as taking place in the extracellular compartment
with a given initial concentration of EGF. The concentration of EGFR in
the extracellular compartment would then be calculated as the number of
the receptors on the cell surface divided by the (average) volume of
incubation medium per cell (Vm). In step 2, association and dissociation of the receptor monomers occurs in the
cell membrane. All other steps are considered as taking place in the
cytosolic compartment. Therefore, the same mole number of EGFR would
give rise to three EGFR concentrations (representing the different
compartments). However, for computational purposes, it is more
convenient to deal only with a single concentration of EGFR related to
the cytoplasmic water volume (Vcw) of the cell. This
requires rescaling the rate constants of steps 1 and 2. For the purpose
of this rescaling, the EGF concentration in the model was also related
to the cytoplasmic water volume; i.e. [EGF] in the
experimental medium was multiplied by the ratio
Vm/Vcw (see Table
II). Typically, there were
107 cells/ml in our experiments (see "Cell Preparation
and Incubation Conditions"); therefore, Vm = 10 7 ml. Assuming the diameter of a hepatocyte of 20 µm
and a cytoplasmic water volume of about 70% of total intracellular
volume, Vm/Vcw = 33.3.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table II
Rate equations and parameter values of the kinetic model
Concentrations and the Michaelis constants (K4,
K8, and K16) are given in
nM. First- and second-order rate constants are expressed in
s 1 and nM 1 · s 1,
respectively. V4, V8, and
V16 are expressed in nM · s 1. [EGFR]total = 100, [EGF]total = 680, [RPL]total = 105, [Grb2]total = 85, [Shc]total = 150, [SOS]total = 34. Medium
concentration [EGF]total was multiplied by the factor
Vm/Vcw = 33.3 to formally rescale
it to the cytoplasmic water volume.
|
|
Conserved Moieties--
In the reaction network described by the
equations listed in Table I, the EGF moiety and the protein moieties
are conserved. This assumption is justified for the short term
responses considered here. Let [EGFR]total be the total
concentrations of EGFR forms. Then the following is true.
|
(Eq. 2)
|
Assuming that 60-80% out of the total of
1-3·105 EGF receptors/cell (35-37) is displayed on the
cell membrane, the total concentration of surface-expressed EGFR,
translated to the cytoplasm water volume, is about 100 nM.
Five other moieties conserved in the EGFR signaling reactions include
the total concentrations of PLC , Grb2, Shc, and SOS proteins and
EGF, designated below by [PLC ]total,
[Grb2]total, [Shc]total,
[SOS]total, and [EGF]total, respectively
(Table II).
|
(Eq. 3)
|
|
(Eq. 4)
|
|
(Eq. 5)
|
|
(Eq. 6)
|
|
(Eq. 7)
|
Thermodynamic Restrictions along Cyclic Pathways in the Kinetic
Scheme--
If a kinetic scheme includes "true" cycles, in which
the initial and final states are identical, the equilibrium constants of the reactions along any cycle satisfy so-called "detailed
balance" relationships (e.g. see Refs. 38 and 39). These
detailed balance relations require the product of the equilibrium
constants along a cycle to be equal to 1, since at equilibrium the net
flux through any cycle vanishes. Therefore, such relations decrease the
number of independent rate constants in a kinetic model. The kinetic scheme in Fig. 1 demonstrates that the progression along steps 9-12
(in the positive direction) completes a cycle without any concomitant
transformations and changes in the free energy. Hence, the following
restriction exists on the kinetic constants.
|
(Eq. 8)
|
Further examination of the kinetic scheme in Fig. 1 shows
additional reaction cycles that imply the following constraints.
|
(Eq. 9)
|
|
(Eq. 10)
|
|
(Eq. 11)
|
|
(Eq. 12)
|
EGF Binding Constants--
Reported Kd values
for EGF binding to the solubilized extracellular domain of the receptor
(40, 41) range from 100 to 500 nM, whereas full-length EGFR
in plasma membrane vesicles has a substantially higher affinity for
EGF, with an apparent Kd of 0.45-1 nM
(42, 43). In binding studies carried out on intact hepatocytes,
Kd values of 0.4 nM (37) and of 0.03 and
0.29 nM for high and low affinity sites (36), respectively,
have been reported. Our recent data also demonstrate that in intact
hepatocytes, EGFR autophosphorylation saturates at EGF concentrations
of 5-10 nM (25), whereas in Triton-solubilized cells
maximal activation of EGFR tyrosine kinase activity requires 500-1000
nM EGF. These findings indicate that the
Kd for EGF in intact hepatocytes should be well
below the value of 100-500 nM measured for the solubilized
receptor. In the kinetic model, we have used Kd = 0.6 nM for EGF binding to intact liver cells. This
represents an average value of literature data on binding studies in
hepatocytes and is compatible with our experimental data on
EGFR autophosphorylation.
Whereas the Kd values are important for the
(quasi)equilibrium conditions, a knowledge of the rate constants of the forward and backward reactions is required to describe the temporal (and steady-state) behavior. The association and dissociation steps are
characterized by second-order and first-order rate constants, respectively. For EGF binding to the recombinant soluble extracellular binding domain of EGF receptor, the "on" (association) and
"off" (dissociation) rate constants were reported to be
k1 = 1.5·10 4
nM 1 s 1 and
k-1 = 0.06 s 1, and the
Kd = k-1/k1 = 400 nM (43). The Kd value of 0.6 nM, characteristic for membrane-bound receptor can be
obtained if the reported (43) magnitude of k1 is
increased or k-1 is decreased by a factor of
about 600. The characteristic (relaxation) time of the EGF binding
reaction is 1/(k-1 + k1·[EGF]). A decrease in
k-1 by a factor of 600 leads to a relaxation
time equal to about 2500 s (for 2 nM EGF), which is
about 3 orders of magnitude higher than the characteristic time of
experimentally observed responses of the entire signaling network (see
Figs. 2 and 3). Therefore, we conclude that the value of the off rate constant, k-1, is unlikely to be much less than
the value reported in Ref. 43. On the other hand, the on rate constant,
k1, could be substantially higher for the
receptor in situ because of the decreased orientation
restrictions on the positions of encountering molecules. Indeed, the
values of this constant determined in intact fetal rat lung cells (44)
and in human fibroblasts (45) were 20 and 35 times greater than the
value reported by Zhou et al. (43). Taking
k-1 = 0.06 s 1 (43, 45) and
Kd = 0.6 nM gives
k1 = 0.1 nM 1
s 1. With these values of the rate constants, the
characteristic time of the binding reaction with 2 nM EGF
is less than 4 s.
Receptor Dimerization--
Aggregation of activated receptor
monomers (Ra) into a dimer (R2) is brought
about by the random lateral diffusion of Ra in the cell
membrane. The lateral diffusion coefficient (DR) reported for EGFR is about 1-2·10 10 cm2
s 1 (46), in line with the values determined for various
membrane proteins, which are typically in the range of
5·10 9 to 10 10 cm2
s 1 (47-49). Substituting the reported value of
DR into equations for diffusion-limited rate
constants in two dimensions (50-53) and relating the collision rate to
a unit of cytoplasmic water volume, we calculated the diffusion limit
for the second-order rate constant k2 to be
1-0.02 nM 1 s 1. Assuming that
the dimerization rate is below the lower limit of the encounter rate,
we have taken k2 = 0.01 nM 1 s 1. Given a
Kd of EGFR dimerization of 10 nM,
k-2 = 0.1 s 1.
Rate Constants of Phosphorylation and Protein Binding--
In a
living cell, the ATP concentration is much higher than the Michaelis
constant of the receptor kinase for ATP (54, 55). Therefore, the rate
of tyrosine phosphorylation of the receptor (as in step 3) or bound
target proteins (as in steps 6 and 14) can be kinetically characterized
by pseudo-first-order rate constants. Importantly, the standard free
energy differences of the tyrosine phosphorylation reactions are low,
so that the equilibrium constants are of the order of unity (56-58).
Consequently, the phosphorylation steps catalyzed by EGF receptor
kinase are considered reversible (Table II), and the effective rate
constants will depend on the ATP:ADP ratio, which is assumed constant.
By contrast, the phosphatase reactions (steps 4, 16, 8) can be
considered as (kinetically) irreversible. The phosphatases are assumed
to follow Michaelis-Menten kinetics (29, 59), and the concentration of
inorganic phosphate is considered constant.
The association of protein molecules into dimers or larger complexes
occurs with typical rate constants on the order of 10 4 to
10 1 nM 1 s 1
(60-62). The rate constants reported for the association of the p85
subunit of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase with two different phosphopeptides, corresponding to phosphotyrosine sites of the platelet-derived growth factor -receptor were
1.9·10 3 and 9.2·10 3
nM 1 s 1 (63). The binding of SH2
domains of the p85 subunit to phosphotyrosine sequences derived from
the insulin receptor substrate-1 was characterized by association rate
constants of 3·10 2 to 4·10 1
nM 1 s 1 for two different
phosphopeptides and N-terminal and C-terminal SH2 domains of p85 (64).
The dissociation rate constants were observed to be 0.1 s 1 for platelet-derived growth factor
-receptor-derived peptides (63) and 0.1-0.2 s 1 for
insulin receptor substrate-1-derived sequences (64). The dissociation
equilibrium constants appeared to be 14-50 nM for platelet-derived growth factor-derived peptides (63) and 0.3-3 nM for insulin receptor substrate-1 peptides (64). In a
recent study (65), a much higher Kd of 300 nM for the interaction of a platelet-derived growth factor
-receptor-derived peptide with the N-terminal SH2 domain of the p85
subunit of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase has been reported. The
discrepancy between these and some other literature data (66-69)
regarding the binding affinities of the SH2 domains can be explained by
the differences in the experimental techniques, the SH2 domains, and
the phosphopeptide sequences studied (65). Since data for on and off
rate constants for the EGFR interactions with its target proteins
in situ are unavailable, the corresponding rate constants
were assumed to be in the same range as those reported for the binding
of SH2 domains to phosphopeptides (see Table II).
Grb2 interacts with SOS (step 12) with a high affinity through the
N-terminal SH3 domain (70). The off rate constant of Grb2-SOS complex
is orders of magnitude slower than the off rate constants for the
interactions of SH2 domains with phosphotyrosine peptides (70). Fast
dissociation rates at the phosphorylated receptor sites are important
for rapid exchange of ligands (63, 64). It has been reported that the
Grb2-SOS complex binds to both EGFR- and Shc-derived phosphopeptides
with higher affinity than Grb2 alone (71). These experimental data
restrict the Kd values of the corresponding
reactions in the kinetic scheme (Fig. 1) as follows:
Kd9/Kd11 = 2.5;
Kd21/Kd23 = 7;
Kd17/Kd24 = 7. The rate expressions and kinetic constants of all of the reactions
shown in Fig. 1 are collected in Table II.
 |
RESULTS |
Experimental Analysis of EGFR Signaling
The time course of the cellular response to EGF was followed in
freshly isolated hepatocytes by measuring tyrosine phosphorylation and
protein-protein interactions of signaling intermediates described in
Fig. 1 after stimulation with different EGF concentrations (20, 2, or
0.2 nM) for 15, 30, 45, 60, and 120 s. EGFR
phosphorylation was determined by two different approaches. First, EGFR
protein was immunoprecipitated using an anti-EGFR antibody that
recognized both phosphorylated and unphosphorylated receptor, and EGFR
phosphorylation was determined by probing Western blots with
anti-Tyr(P) antibody (25). Alternatively, tyrosine-phosphorylated
proteins were immunoprecipitated using an anti-Tyr(P) antibody, and
membranes were probed for EGFR protein by Western blotting using an
anti-EGFR antibody (or, for other phosphorylated proteins, using
appropriate antibodies). In some experiments, EGFR protein in the
anti-Tyr(P) immunoprecipitates was compared with EGFR protein in
samples of the total lysate run in parallel on the same membranes, or
the anti-Tyr(P) immunoprecipitates were compared on the same membranes
with the anti-EGFR immunoprecipitates, using the same anti-EGFR
antibody for detection. These experiments provided estimates of the
phosphorylated EGFR protein as a fraction of total EGFR protein in the lysate.
Fig. 2 shows total phosphorylated EGFR as a fraction of the total EGFR
protein in the lysate at different times after stimulation with EGF.
The kinetic scheme in Fig. 1 indicates
that the following EGFR forms contributed to the bands of the
phosphorylated receptor.
|
(Eq. 13)
|
Activation of hepatocytes with a saturating concentration of EGF
(20 nM) elicited a rapid response of receptor
autophosphorylation. The peak EGFR phosphorylation level was reached
within 15 s and was equivalent to 50-70% of the total detectable
receptor protein in the cells. It declined to reach a
quasi-steady-state phosphorylation level of 15-20% of the total
receptor population by 2 min. This sustained level was maintained
during further incubation up to 30 min (not shown). A lower EGF
concentration (2 nM) also induced a transient receptor
phosphorylation response, but the peak level was significantly less
(35% of total EGFR). A much lower peak phosphorylation level (less
than 10%) was obtained at 0.2 nM EGF. The peak
phosphorylation level detected in anti-EGFR immunoprecipitates and in
anti-Tyr(P) immunoprecipitates after a 15-s stimulation with EGF was
not significantly different, indicating that conditions used for
immunoprecipitation were equally effective with either antibody and
that the data describing early events in EGFR signaling were not
significantly affected by the method of measurement.

View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Kinetic scheme of EGFR signaling mediated by
adapter and target proteins. Numbering of individual steps is
arbitrary.
|
|
Fig. 3 shows the time course of the EGF (20 nM)-induced
activation of several downstream signaling events, as detected by tyrosine phosphorylation of PLC and Shc proteins (A and
B), and by Grb2 coprecipitation with EGFR and Shc
(C). Tyrosine phosphorylation of PLC (Fig. 3A)
was measured by immunoprecipitation with anti-Tyr(P) antibody and
detection by Western blotting with anti-PLC antibody. The quantity
of PLC protein detected in these immunoprecipitates was compared
with total PLC protein obtained after immunoprecipitation with
anti-PLC antibody and run in parallel on the same gels. The PLC
band in the anti-Tyr(P) immunoprecipitates includes the following
complexes (see Fig. 1).
|
(Eq. 14)
|
The time course of tyrosine phosphorylation of Shc (Fig.
3B) was also measured in anti-Tyr(P) immunoprecipitates
using anti-Shc antibodies for detection. The predominant Shc isoforms
detected in the liver cell lysate include a 46- and a 52-kDa form. Both isoforms become tyrosine-phosphorylated in response to EGF with approximately similar kinetics (72). The density of the corresponding bands was compared with the Shc protein bands detected in the total
lysate analyzed in parallel on the same gel. The phosphorylated Shc
protein detected in these analyses reflects the sum of the following
concentrations (see Fig. 1).
|
(Eq. 15)
|
Grb2 coprecipitation with EGFR and with Shc (Fig. 3C)
was measured by immunoprecipitating cell lysates with anti-EGFR
antibody and with anti-Shc antibody and detecting coprecipitated Grb2
by Western blotting with Grb2 antibody. According to the kinetic scheme
of Fig. 1, the corresponding bands in the gels include the following
complexes.
|
(Eq. 16)
|
|
(Eq. 17)
|
Quantification of the bands was done by comparison with the total
cell lysates analyzed in parallel on the same gels. In agreement with
our earlier findings (25), a larger fraction of Grb2 was bound to Shc
than to EGFR (Fig. 3C).
A striking feature of the early responses to EGF is the pronounced
maximum in the concentrations of phosphorylated EGFR, Grb2 coprecipitated with EGFR, and phosphorylated PLC (see Figs.
2 and 3).
Interestingly, the time course of EGFR phosphorylation correlates with
the time course of Grb2 bound to EGFR and of phosphorylated PLC ,
suggesting that the events occurring in the different branches of the
kinetic scheme of Fig. 1 were partially synchronized. The observed
pattern of early EGFR signaling raises several questions, such as the
following. Why do tyrosine phosphorylated EGFR and PLC , as well as
the total concentration of Grb2-EGFR complexes, exhibit pronounced
peaks and then descend to relatively low sustained levels despite
continuous EGF stimulation? At the same time, why does the total
concentration of phosphorylated forms of Shc and of Grb2-Shc complexes
increase monotonically, reaching a quasistationary level? Why does the
amount of Grb2 bound to Shc significantly exceed that of Grb2 bound to
EGFR? Computational kinetic analysis provides a tool to answer these
questions.

View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Time course of EGFR autophosphorylation in
hepatocytes. A, Western blots of EGFR in anti-Tyr(P)
immunoprecipitates run in parallel to anti-EGFR immunoprecipitates
(1:2.5 dilution). Detection by anti-EGFR antibody is shown.
B, phosphorylated EGFR as a fraction of the total EGFR in
cell lysate at different times after stimulation with 20 nM
( ), 2 nM ( ), or 0.2 nM EGF ( ). Data
are mean ± S.E. from three different immunoprecipitates,
representative of five similar experiments. PY,
phosphotyrosine.
|
|

View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Time course of EGF-induced tyrosine
phosphorylation. A, phosphorylated PLC , ([EGF] = 20 nM ( ) or 2 nM ( )); B,
phosphorylated Shc, [EGF] = 20 nM; C, Grb2
coprecipitation with Shc ( ) and with EGFR ( ), [EGF] = 20 nM. All proteins were quantified as percentage of the total
corresponding protein in lysates. IP,
immunoprecipitation.
|
|
Computational Kinetic Analysis of EGFR Signaling
Time Course of Receptor Phosphorylation and Target Protein
Recruitment--
The time course of responses to EGF was computed and
compared with the experimental observations. Fig.
4A (solid
lines) illustrates how the total concentrations of
phosphorylated receptor forms depend on the duration of hepatocyte
stimulation by 20, 5, and 2 nM EGF. These transients
demonstrate a good fit to the experimentally observed time course (Fig.
2B), exhibiting a marked decline in the total phosphorylated
EGFR following an initial peak. Taking into account that there were
107 cells in 1 ml of incubation medium, computational
analysis confirmed that 20 nM EGF in the medium is a
saturating concentration for EGFR signaling (cf.
lines 1 and 2 in Fig. 4A).
The peak level of total phosphorylated EGFR, normalized to cytoplasmic
water space was about 80 nM at saturating EGF concentration
(i.e. 80% of the surface-expressed EGFR, corresponding to
about 50% of the total EGFR population) and 50 nM with 2 nM EGF. Previously, in order to explain the early peaks in
the transients, the rapid burst of tyrosine phosphorylation of EGFR
and/or some cytosolic targets was assumed to cause the activation of
tyrosine phosphatases that dephosphorylate Tyr(P) residues
(e.g. Ref. 25). Importantly, the kinetic model indicates
that this assumption is not required if binding of a target molecule to
a Tyr(P) residue of EGFR protects the residue against a constitutive
phosphatase activity. During the time interval when the phosphorylated
EGFR proceeds through its duty cycles (steps 5-20 in Fig. 1), Tyr(P)
residues occupied by their ligand proteins are protected against
dephosphorylation. The total concentration of these receptor forms
begins to significantly exceed the concentration of the ligand-free
form, RP (which is rapidly dephosphorylated), resulting in an effective
increase in tyrosine phosphorylation of the receptor. The completion of receptor cycles returns the receptor to the ligand-free RP form, hence
increasing the RP concentration relative to that of nonphosphorylated dimer R2. Since the phosphatase(s) continue to
dephosphorylate RP, the dephosphorylation rate (Fig. 4B,
line 2) begins to exceed the rate of
R2 phosphorylation by tyrosine kinase (line
1), and the level of tyrosine phosphorylation of EGFR
decreases. By contrast, when we assumed that Tyr(P) residues occupied
by ligands are still accessible to phosphatase (which, therefore,
effectively competes with the ligands), the experimentally observed
maxima did not appear in the simulated responses to EGF (Fig.
4A, dashed line).

View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Computation of the time course of EGFR
autophosphorylation. A, stimulation with 20 nM (line 1), 5 nM
(line 2), and 2 nM of EGF
(line 3). The dashed line
corresponds to the assumption that binding of ligands does not protect
Tyr(P) residues of EGFR against the phosphatase. B,
1, rate of EGFR autophosphorylation (step 3 in Fig. 1),
2, dephosphorylation rate (step 4).
|
|
The total concentrations of phosphorylated Shc and of Grb2
coprecipitated with phosphorylated Shc do not exhibit a marked maximum
(Fig. 5A), and they reach a
quasistationary level, in agreement with our experimental observations
(Fig. 3B). Importantly, the kinetic model explains why these
transients differ so markedly from the transients of the total
phosphorylated EGFR (Fig. 4A) and Grb2 coprecipitated with
EGFR (Fig. 5B). Computations show that the total
phosphorylated Shc bound to EGFR (i.e. [R-ShP] + [R-Sh-G] + [R-Sh-G-S]) exhibits a pronounced peak, descending then
to a low sustained level (Fig. 5B). We conclude that the almost monotonic increase in the total phosphorylated Shc is brought about by the accumulation of the phosphorylated forms dissociated from
the receptor, i.e. [ShP] + [Sh-G] + [Sh-G-S].

View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Computation of the time course of downstream
EGF signaling in hepatocytes. A, total phosphorylated
Shc (lines 1 and 2) and total Grb2
coprecipitated with Shc (lines 3 and
4). B, total phosphorylated Shc bound to EGFR
(lines 1 and 2) and total Grb2 bound
to EGFR (lines 3 and 4). C,
total (activated) SOS bound to EGFR (lines 1 and
2) and the concentration of Sh-G-S complex (lines 3 and 4). D, total phosphorylated
PLC . The dashed line shows the time course in
the absence of the PLC P translocation step (step 25 in Fig. 1).
Shown is stimulation with 20 nM (A-C,
lines 1 and 3; D,
line 1) and with 2 nM of EGF
(A-C, lines 2 and 4;
D, line 2).
|
|
The progress of phosphorylated receptor through its cycles can be
described in terms of a wave propagation. Indeed, the transients of the
concentration of phosphorylated EGFR forms and of the target proteins
bound to EGFR behave as a single wave. A decrease in free
(nonactivated) forms of the target proteins after EGF stimulation prevents the repetition of such waves, driven by tyrosine
phosphorylation of the receptor at the expense of ATP hydrolysis.
Because the computational model does not include the process of EGFR
internalization, the completion of this transient process leads to
steady-state signaling. Computations show that the quasistationary
levels reached by about 2 or 3 min are maintained during the following
30 min, and this is confirmed by experimental observations (25).
It is believed that a key component of the activation of SOS is its
recruitment by EGFR to the plasma membrane, where Ras protein is
located (73-75). The binding of SOS to EGFR is mediated by Grb2, which
forms a stable complex with SOS (step 12) even in the absence of EGF
stimulation (70). Since the reported Kd for this
interaction is in the nanomolar range (70), a substantial fraction of
SOS (more than 50%) should exist in complex with Grb2 in resting cells
(G-S in Fig. 1). The kinetic model shows that after EGF stimulation the
concentration of the free complex G-S decreases, as G-S binds to
phosphorylated receptor. The total concentrations of SOS bound to EGFR
(R-G-S and R-Sh-G-S) and to the phosphorylated Shc (Sh-G-S) exhibit
transient and monotonic increases, respectively (Fig. 5C).
The interaction of SOS with Ras may be more effective (in terms of the
formation of the productive complex) when SOS is brought in close
vicinity to the membrane-bound Ras protein than it would have been when
it depends on collisions with Ras from the cytosol (76). Hence, the
transient response of SOS complexed with EGFR (Fig. 5C) may
result in a transient activation of Ras. It is also possible that SOS
can be targeted (through Shc) to other scaffolding proteins to generate
additional Ras activation signals, which can be separately controlled.
Using the kinetic model, it is instructive to monitor how the rates of
individual steps change with time. The rates of steps of the receptor
cycles involving EGFR interaction with PLC and Shc increase to peak
values and then decrease to low (less than 1 nM/s) or close
to zero sustained (stationary) values. Remarkably, the rates of
phosphorylation of the receptor (by EGFR intrinsic tyrosine kinase in
step 3) and its dephosphorylation by phosphotyrosine phosphatase(s)
(step 4) do not decrease to zero with time (Fig. 4B). On the
contrary, they reach rather high sustained values. The phosphorylation
and dephosphorylation cycle involving steps 3 and 4 is an ATP consumer.
Our computations showed that during a sustained EGFR signaling, the
energy demand is less than 0.1% of the total ATP production in
hepatocytes. The stationary rates of dephosphorylation of ShP (step 16)
or PLC P (step 8) are relatively low (less than 1 nM/s).
Origin of the Transient Response of PLC --
The computational
model indicates that the experimentally observed rapid transient
phosphorylation of PLC (Fig. 3A) would require some form
of deactivation of phosphorylated PLC after its dissociation from
EGFR in step 7 or the disabling of recurrent phosphorylation of PLC
after its dephosphorylation in step 8 (Fig. 1). If PLC P
concentration would accumulate and increase significantly above the
R-PLP concentration, the time course of accumulation of total
phosphorylated PLC should be monotonic (similar to that of total
phosphorylated ShP). Computations show that the dynamics of the PLC
cycle does not fit the experimentally observed transients, unless it is
assumed that PLC P undergoes an additional transformation preventing
the immediate conversion to free unphosphorylated PLC . Binding of
PLC P to the cytoskeleton or membranes, or to any other structural
component of the cell can function as such a transformation. Indeed,
binding of PLC P to the cytoskeleton has been proposed in
experimental studies carried out on hepatocytes, maintained in culture
for 24 h (32, 33). Another possibility is that after its
dephosphorylation in step 8, PLC would no longer be available for
interactions with EGFR, which impedes its further tyrosine
phosphorylation by the receptor kinase. Fig. 5D compares the
time course of the total phosphorylated PLC when we assume a
translocation (step 25) of PLC P to a structural element of the cell
(solid lines) and in the absence of such a
process (dashed line).
We tested experimentally to what extent binding of PLC to cellular
constituents could account for this response pattern. In the experiment
of Fig. 6, isolated hepatocytes were
stimulated with EGF (20 nM) for periods ranging from
15 s to 60 min, and cells were permeabilized with digitonin (150 µg/ml, equivalent to approximately 7 µg/mg of protein). At this
concentration, digitonin selectively permeabilizes the plasma membrane
and causes release of soluble proteins from the cytoplasm, while bound
or compartmentalized proteins are retained in the particulate fraction.
Specifically, all EGFR protein is recovered from the particulate
fraction, indicating that digitonin treatment caused no significant
solubilization of plasma membrane proteins.

View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Distribution and tyrosine phosphorylation of
PLC after EGF stimulation. Isolated
hepatocytes were stimulated with EGF (20 nM) for periods of
15 s to 60 min and permeabilized with digitonin. Supernatants were
removed (soluble fraction), and pellets were reextracted with lysis
buffer containing 0.1% SDS, 1% deoxycholate (particulate fraction).
Immunoprecipitation of PLC or tyrosine-phosphorylated proteins was
carried out with antibodies against PLC (A) and
phosphotyrosine (B), respectively, as described under
"Experimental Procedures" and analyzed by Western blotting using
anti-PLC antibodies (anti-PLC Ab).
|
|
The analysis of PLC in the soluble and particulate fraction of
digitonin-treated hepatocytes is shown in Fig. 6. The data of Fig. 6
demonstrate that the vast excess (>90%) of PLC is available free
in the cytosol in the dephosphorylated form, yet is excluded from
sustained EGFR-mediated phosphorylation. This finding suggests that
other modifications of PLC or EGFR occur following EGF stimulation of the cells that prevent their interaction. However, analysis of
PLC with phosphoserine or phosphothreonine antibodies detected only
a modest level of serine/threonine phosphorylation that was entirely
confined to the PLC bound to the particulate fraction. Another
possible mechanism is suggested by a recent report (77) that
demonstrates that phosphatidylinositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate, the product
of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, can bind to the PLC SH2 domain and
inhibit its binding to phosphotyrosine residues on growth factor
receptors. This mechanism may be involved in localizing PLC in the
vicinity of its substrate and also result in suppressing PLC
availability for binding to the phosphorylated growth factor
receptor. To what extent this mechanism contributes to restricting
access of PLC to the activated EGFR in hepatocytes is currently
under investigation.
Sensitivity of the Dynamic Pattern to Variations in Rate
Constants--
The dynamics of the EGFR signaling appears to be robust
to significant changes in the rate constants of the protein
interactions involved (cf. Ref. 78). Typically, a
severalfold (in many cases 1 or even 2 orders of magnitude) variation
of a rate constant does not result in significant changes of the
response to EGF. However, not all of the rate constants can be
arbitrarily changed, and certainly, a simultaneous alteration of all of
the rate constants does result in a marked change of the response
dynamics. To come to grips with the latter issue, we return to the
equations in Table I that describe the time course of signal
propagation. The time derivative of the concentration of a component
enters the left-hand side of these equations, and each term on the
right-hand side is the rate of production or consumption of that
component in a particular process. A simultaneous, say 2-fold, change
in all of the rate constants results in multiplication of the
right-hand side of every equation in Table I by a factor of 2 (note
that Vmax of the phosphatases also increase
twice after a 2-fold increase in all of the elemental rate constants,
whereas Michaelis constants do not change). This multiplication is
equivalent to scaling of the time, and exactly the same levels of
cellular tyrosine phosphorylations will be now reached twice as fast.
An important feature of the kinetic behavior of EGFR signaling results
from the bimolecular nature of protein-protein interactions. A
simultaneous, e.g. n-fold increase in the amounts
of the proteins involved in EGFR signaling and an n-fold
decrease in the second-order rate constants (of protein association
reactions) at unchanged values of all the first-order rate constants
will not change the time course of the signal propagation (during this
procedure, the phosphatase reactions should be also considered at the
level of elemental processes (79)).
Dependence of the Responses to EGF on Relative Abundance of
Signaling Proteins--
The kinetic model emphasizes that the dynamic
pattern of signal propagation strongly depends on the relative
abundance of molecular factors involved in the EGFR pathway. Because
the cellular concentrations of signaling molecules such as Shc, Grb2,
and SOS have not yet been determined (70), we employed a computational analysis to determine the concentration range over which the calculated responses to EGF are consistent with our experimental observations. The
time course of phosphorylation/activation responses to EGF appeared to
be more sensitive to variations in relative concentrations of signaling
proteins than to most variations of the kinetic constants. This can be
explained by a competition of various adapter/target proteins for EGFR
and by nonlinear interactions leading to the formation of multiprotein
complexes. The model suggests that in hepatocytes, the total
concentrations of Shc and Grb2 do not differ by more than 1 or 2 orders
of magnitude from the total EGFR concentration (rescaled to cell water
volume), and [Shc]total and [Grb2]total exceed [SOS]total (Table II). As yet, there are no solid
experimental data to assess the validity of this conclusion.
Fig. 7 illustrates how the cellular
content of Shc and Grb2 affects the time pattern of EGFR-Grb2
coprecipitation. Fig. 7 (line 1) shows that a
4-fold decrease in [Shc]total completely eliminates the
peak in the time course of the total Grb2 bound to EGFR, in sharp
contrast with experimental observations (compare Fig. 7 with Fig.
3C). Interestingly, similar changes in the response pattern
to EGF are brought about by a 4-fold increase in
[Grb2]total (Fig. 7, line 2). These
results suggest that the Shc:Grb2 ratio is an important controlling
factor of the EGFR signaling response.

View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Alteration in computed response patterns with
variation of total concentrations of signaling components.
A, effect of changes in [Shc]total and
[Grb2]total on the time course of the total concentration
of EGFR-Grb2 complexes. 1, 4-fold decrease in
[Shc]total compared with the control,
[Shc]total = 37.5 nM; 2, 4-fold
increase in [Grb2]total compared with the control,
[Grb2]total = 340 nM. For comparison, the
corresponding control curve is shown (dashed line). Stimulation was with 20 nM EGF.
B, effect of surface EGFR concentration on the time course
of EGFR phosphorylation. Shown are a 4-fold increase (1) and
4-fold decrease (2) in surface receptor population compared
with the control. Dashed line, control curve.
Stimulation was with 20 nM EGF.
|
|
Using the kinetic model, we examined how the relative abundance of EGFR
affects the time course of cellular response to EGF. An increase in
EGFR content by factors ranging from 2 up to 10 did not change the
qualitative behavior of the response. However, there were significant
quantitative changes. For Shc phosphorylation, overexpression of EGFR
markedly shortened the period of time required to reach a high
sustained level. For EGFR and PLC phosphorylation and for the
concentration of Grb2-EGFR complexes, an increase in the amount of
active receptors decreased the time required to descend from a high
peak to a relatively low sustained level. The maximal levels of
phosphorylation of EGFR and PLC and of total Grb2 bound to EGFR rose
with an increase in the total EGFR level. The peak:sustained
concentration ratio decreased for phosphorylated EGFR and for Grb2
bound to EGFR but increased for phosphorylated PLC . A significant
decrease in EGFR availability brought about both quantitative and
qualitative changes in response behavior. First, it substantially
changed the time frame of the progress of EGFR signaling. For instance,
the time of relaxation of EGFR autophosphorylation to a sustained level
increased from about 1 min to over 20 min with a 90% decrease in
active EGFR content. Second, for all transients, the ratio of peak to
stationary value sharply decreased with inactivation of EGFR, and a
90% decrease in [EGFR]total eliminates the transient
peak in phosphorylated PLC . These findings illustrate the functional
importance of short term and long term variations in EGFR availability
(by changes in surface expression or receptor inactivation or
down-regulation) for the dynamic response patterns in the cell.
 |
DISCUSSION |
Protein phosphorylation that results from EGF stimulation of
cellular receptors is a dynamic process. It reflects not only activation of the receptor protein kinase but also the interactions between different signaling components and the activities of various phosphatases. Downstream EGFR signaling depends on how the
phosphorylation of adapter and target molecules develops over time, and
both transient and sustained levels of this phosphorylation/activation
ultimately depend on the entire network of signaling reactions.
However, there is a gap between our knowledge of signaling events at
the molecular level and our understanding of how the cellular response is integrated to achieve the desired physiological outcome. In order to
fill this gap, we have combined experimental analysis with a
computational kinetic approach, with the goal of creating a unifying
framework for studying receptor tyrosine kinase signaling.
Experimental analysis of the time course of the response to EGF
stimulation in rat hepatocytes demonstrated a rapid burst in receptor
phosphorylation and accumulation of phosphorylated/activated target
proteins, which occurs as early as within 15-30 s following EGF
stimulation (Figs. 2 and 3). The time resolution of the experiments was
not sufficient to show the initial rate of increase in EGFR phosphorylation or activation of its target proteins. A more gradual increase can be seen at temperatures lower than 37 °C used in these
experiments. Preliminary results, using a modified experimental design
to improve the time resolution, suggest that the rate of tyrosine
phosphorylation can be resolved on a time scale of seconds, with
receptor and target proteins reaching peak phosphorylation levels at
different time points between 5 and 15 s (data not shown). After
15-30 s, the concentrations of phosphorylated EGFR, Grb2 coprecipitated with EGFR, and phosphorylated PLC started to decrease over time, approaching sustained levels that were much lower than the
peaks (Figs. 2 and 3). By contrast, the concentrations of total
phosphorylated Shc and Grb2 coprecipitating with Shc increased almost
monotonically, reaching high sustained levels (Fig. 3).
We have derived a kinetic model of EGFR signaling pathway to account
for the complex cellular responses to EGF. The model has been written
in molecular terms as a cascade of protein interactions that involve
EGFR, Shc, PLC , Grb2, and SOS proteins and
phosphorylation/dephosphorylation reactions. Each molecular step of the
model is a relatively simple biochemical or physical process. The
kinetic parameters have been selected using current information from
the extensive literature and/or derived from basic physical-chemical
quantities. Our approach provides a quantitative and integrative
description of EGFR signal transduction. While the present model
simplifies the complexity of the EGFR phosphorylation, it successfully
explains the experimentally observed time course of early events in
EGF-initiated signaling in liver cells. A transient pattern of the EGFR
phosphorylation appears to result from the protection of
phosphotyrosine residues against dephosphorylation, as long as a target
protein is bound to EGFR. The response behavior is analogous to the
propagation of phosphorylation waves through receptor cycles (see Fig.
1). Therefore, the concentrations of target proteins bound to the receptor exhibit transient responses (such as complexes of EGFR with
Shc, Grb2, and SOS; see Fig. 5, B and C,
lines 1 and 2), whereas the
concentration of the phosphorylated Shc and its complexes with Grb and
SOS dissociated from the receptor increase almost monotonically (Fig.
5, A and C, lines 3 and
4).
The analysis of sensitivity showed that the response of EGFR signaling
pathways to EGF stimulation is stable with respect to changes in the
kinetic parameters over a wide range of values. On the other hand, our
analysis predicts which factors control the activation state of EGFR
and its target proteins. The computational model identifies the kinetic
properties of individual reactions that are important for the transient
behavior observed experimentally. In particular, computations indicate
that after tyrosine phosphorylation of a target protein (Shc, PLC )
bound to EGFR, its Kd for EGFR should increase by at
least 1 order of magnitude (compared with the Kd for
the same unphosphorylated protein). The model demonstrates that the
time course of EGFR tyrosine phosphorylation strongly depends on the
rate constants of binding and dissociation of phosphorylated Shc
protein from EGFR (step 15 in Fig. 1). For instance, a marked decrease
in both on and off constants, which leaves the Kd of
step 15 unchanged, retards the decrease in the total phosphorylated
EGFR from the peak to the sustained level. Another prediction of the
kinetic modeling is that the phosphatase(s) of EGFR (step 4) must be
strongly regulated by the substrate concentration (RP) and cannot be at
saturation when transients with pronounced maxima are observed. In
other words, the affinity of the phosphatase for the phosphorylated
EGFR cannot be very high, so that the range of variation of the
concentration of phosphorylated EGFR does not exceed the apparent
Km of the phosphatase(s). A surprising prediction is
that the effective activities (Vmax for the
saturation condition or
Vmax/Km ratios for a
subsaturating (nearly linear) range) should be substantially lower for
the phosphatases of phosphorylated Shc and PLC (steps 16 and 8) than
for the receptor phosphatase(s) (step 4). A sustained increase in the
activities of Shc and PLC phosphatases to the level of the EGFR
phosphatase activity will eliminate sharp peaks in the time course of
cellular phosphorylation responses to EGF stimulation.
The control of response patterns by the abundance of signaling proteins
shown by the model implies that the range of kinetic constants
compatible with experimentally observed behavior may change if the
assumptions about the amounts of signaling proteins would have to be
adjusted on the basis of future measurements. Various cell types and
cells in different functional states may show considerable variation in
the abundance of signaling proteins. These differences can alter the
response patterns to growth factors in a significant manner
(cf. Fig. 7).
Importantly, testing the computational results against experimentally
observed response patterns restricted model choices and justified some
simplifications we made. For instance, the model simplifies EGF binding
to EGFR to that described by a single Kd. By
contrast, some EGF binding studies have been interpreted in terms of
two subclasses of receptors with different affinities to EGF (see,
e.g. (36, 80)). Evidence for two binding sites for EGF was
based on the nonlinearity of Scatchard plots, showing negative
cooperativity of EGF binding. However, there is no direct experimental
evidence for the existence of two stable populations of EGFR with
different affinities for EGF. Although several models accounting for
nonlinearity of Scatchard plots have been suggested, the precise
molecular basis for the difference in affinity of EGF receptors is
still unclear. For example, it has been proposed that the high affinity
state represents the dimeric form of the receptor (43, 81-83).
However, this model would predict that equilibrium binding data show
positive cooperativity, clearly inconsistent with the experimental
observations, which show only neutral or negative cooperativity. In
order to account for the experimental data, allosteric binding of EGF
(84, 85) or the formation of a ternary complex has been proposed where
EGF interacts with one or more cell surface molecules that increases
binding affinity (86). Indeed, evidence has been found that the
high-affinity class of EGF receptors is associated with the
cytoskeleton (87, 88), specifically with filamentous actin (89).
However, an EGFR mutant that lacks the actin-binding site still
expressed both high and low affinities for EGF (90). A domain of the
intracellular part of the receptor, located within the tyrosine kinase
domain, appeared to regulate the affinity for EGF (90). Therefore, an affinity-modulating protein may be a substrate of the EGF receptor kinase. Recently, high affinity EGF binding was found to be lost in
HeLa cells overexpressing a mutant dynamin (K44A) (91), suggesting that
this affinity-modulating protein interacts with dynamin.
These unresolved issues concerning the different affinities of EGF
binding clearly show that future experiments are needed to establish a
precise molecular mechanism responsible for different affinity forms of
EGFR. However, this knowledge is not of primary importance for modeling
the kinetic behavior of EGF-induced signaling, unless the extracellular
EGF concentration is well below the Kd of high
affinity binding, i.e. well below the lowest EGF
concentration of 0.2 nM used in our experiments. The
Kd of 0.6 nM used in the model represent
the "pure" receptor lacking the post-binding events. The kinetic
scheme (Fig. 1) assumes that all tyrosine-phosphorylated receptor
dimers do not release EGF, i.e. the corresponding
dissociation constants for EGF became very low (26). Therefore, in this
system, the apparent Kd for EGF that would be
detected in binding experiments should be significantly below the value
of 0.6 nM of the receptor per se. Even if the
Kd for EGF is higher for some of the dimer receptor
forms (as in the model proposed in Ref. 85), because of the negative
cooperativity of EGF binding only one of the two EGF molecules will
dissociate from the receptor. The remaining EGF molecule must have much
greater affinity for EGFR (85), so that the amount of free receptor
dimer corresponding to any particular phosphorylated EGFR form can be
disregarded at EGF concentrations of 0.2 nM or above.
Noteworthy, an analysis of the crystal structures of tyrosine kinase
receptors suggests that after dimerization and autophosphorylation, an
increased kinase activity of the receptor is maintained even when a
hormone molecule is removed from the activated receptor dimer (92). Therefore, these receptor dimers will continue to signal, which further
supports the assumption of the kinetic scheme in Fig. 1.
Another simplification is that our model considers EGF receptor dimers
as a single molecular class. Although it is known that EGFR can form
heterodimers with other members of the ErbB growth factor receptor
family and initiate diverse downstream pathways (93-95),
considerations of these complex interactions is not required to account
for experimental data shown in Figs. 2 and 3. At the same time, our
approach provides a strong basis for incorporating distinct subclasses
of EGFR in a more complex kinetic model and evaluating their impact on
the cellular responses to EGF. The kinetic model suggests which
features of the experimental data are indicative of unexpected
complexities in the cell's response and also provides a tool to assess
the feasibility of different mechanisms to explain anomalous behavior.
For instance, the transient phosphorylation response of EGF-stimulated
PLC reported in our previous studies (25) is here demonstrated to be
indicative of additional regulation of this target protein. The purpose
of computer modeling is to provide a basis for guiding experimental analysis and testing explicit hypotheses. A model by itself is not an
objective "truth," but it can be used to falsify a specific hypothesis. Therefore, good modeling practice requires a systematic exploration of parameter variance ranges compatible with experimentally observed behavior (96).
The kinetic scheme (Fig. 1) was designed to incorporate only the
interactions of EGFR with Shc, Grb2, PLC , and SOS (through Grb2).
There are other signaling proteins that bind to EGFR in hepatocytes
(e.g. phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, GTPase-activating protein, Eps15), and other, as yet uncharacterized, target proteins may
exist. The incorporation of these proteins will generate additional cycles/branches in the kinetic scheme emanating from the phosphorylated receptor-dimer RP (see Fig. 1). Provided the fraction of the receptor bound to additional target proteins is less than the maximal fraction bound to the proteins presented in Fig. 1, these additional
interactions will not change the time course of the responses
considered here. Moreover, our results make it possible to predict and
interpret the time course of EGFR-activated proteins and protein
complexes, even those that were not considered explicitly in this
paper. In general, transient peaks of the concentrations of complexes of EGFR with activated signaling proteins can be expected (provided rate constants are appropriate). By contrast, the concentrations of
activated signaling proteins after their dissociation from the EGF
receptor will increase nearly monotonically, unless other inactivation/compartmentation processes occur, such as inhibitory phosphorylation or binding to specific cell structures (with possible subsequent inactivation/degradation). Hence, the kinetics of response patterns of specific target proteins provides information on the nature
of downstream regulatory events that can be interpreted in the context
of the kinetic scheme presented here.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health
Grants AA07186, AA07215, AA08714, and AA11689 and Russian Federation for Basic Research Grant N98-04-48868 (to O. V. D.).The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
§
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Pathology,
Anatomy and Cell Biology, Thomas Jefferson University, JAH, 1020 Locust
St., Philadelphia, PA 19107. Tel.: 215-503-5022; Fax: 215-923-2218;
E-mail: Boris.Kholodenko@mail.tju.edu.
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
EGFR, EGF receptor;
EGF, epidermal growth factor;
SH2, Src homology 2 domain;
Grb2, growth
factor receptor-binding protein 2;
Shc, Src homology and collagen
domain protein;
PLC , phosphoinositide-specific phospholipase C- ;
SOS, Son of Sevenless homolog protein.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Schlessinger, J.,
and Ullrich, A.
(1992)
Neuron
9,
383-391[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 2.
|
Marshall, C. J.
(1995)
Cell
80,
179-185[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 3.
|
Schlessinger, J.,
and Bar-Sagi, D.
(1994)
Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol.
59,
173-179[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 4.
|
Schlessinger, J.
(1994)
Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
4,
25-30[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 5.
|
Carpenter, G.
(1992)
FASEB J.
6,
3283-3289[Abstract]
|
| 6.
|
Malarkey, K.,
Belham, C. M.,
Paul, A.,
Graham, A.,
McLees, A.,
Scott, P. H.,
and Plevin, R.
(1995)
Biochem. J.
309,
361-375
|
| 7.
|
Shymko, R. M.,
De Meyts, P.,
and Thomas, R.
(1997)
Biochem. J.
326,
463-469
|
| 8.
|
Downward, J.
(1998)
Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
8,
49-54[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 9.
|
Bhalla, U. S.,
and Iyengar, R.
(1999)
Science
283,
381-387[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 10.
|
Sewing, A.,
Wiseman, B.,
Lloyd, A. C.,
and Land, H.
(1997)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
17,
5588-5597[Abstract]
|
| 11.
|
Lloyd, A. C.,
Obermuller, F.,
Staddon, S.,
Barth, C. F.,
McMahon, M.,
and Land, H.
(1997)
Genes Dev.
11,
663-677[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 12.
|
Smith, M. R.,
Heidecker, G.,
Rapp, U. R.,
and Kung, H. F.
(1990)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
10,
3828-3833[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 13.
|
Woods, D.,
Parry, D.,
Cherwinski, H.,
Bosch, E.,
Lees, E.,
and McMahon, M.
(1997)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
17,
5598-5611[Abstract]
|
| 14.
|
York, R. D.,
Yao, H.,
Dillon, T.,
Ellig, C. L.,
Eckert, S. P.,
McCleskey, E. W.,
and Stork, P. J.
(1998)
Nature
392,
622-626[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 15.
|
Pan, M. G.,
Wang, Y. H.,
Hirsch, D. D.,
Labudda, K.,
and Stork, P. J.
(1995)
Oncogene
11,
2005-2012[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 16.
|
Yao, H.,
Labudda, K.,
Rim, C.,
Capodieci, P.,
Loda, M.,
and Stork, P. J.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
20748-20753[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 17.
|
Koshland, D. E., Jr.
(1998)
Science
280,
852-853[Free Full Text]
|
| 18.
|
Huang, C. Y.,
and Ferrell, J. E., Jr.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
93,
10078-10083[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 19.
|
Kholodenko, B. N.,
Hoek, J. B.,
Westerhoff, H. V.,
and Brown, G. C.
(1997)
FEBS Lett.
414,
430-434[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 20.
|
Vieira, A. V.,
Lamaze, C.,
and Schmid, S. L.
(1996)
Science
274,
2086-2089[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 21.
|
Emlet, D. R.,
Moscatello, D. K.,
Ludlow, L. B.,
and Wong, A. J.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
4079-4086[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 22.
|
Wang, Z.,
and Moran, M. F.
(1996)
Science
272,
1935-1939[Abstract]
|
| 23.
|
Hoek, J. B.,
Thomas, A. P.,
Rubin, R.,
and Rubin, E.
(1987)
J. Biol. Chem.
262,
682-691[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 24.
|
Gladhaug, I. P.,
Refsnes, M.,
and Christoffersen, T.
(1992)
Dig. Dis. Sci.
37,
233-239[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 25.
|
Saso, K.,
Moehren, G.,
Higashi, K.,
and Hoek, J. B.
(1997)
Gastroenterology
112,
2073-2088[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 26.
|
Lemmon, M. A.,
Bu, Z.,
Ladbury, J. E.,
Zhou, M.,
Pinchasi, D.,
Lax, I.,
Engelman, D. M.,
and Schlessinger, J.
(1997)
EMBO J.
16,
281-294[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 27.
|
Sherrill, J. M.,
and Kyte, J.
(1996)
Biochemistry
35,
5705-5718[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 28.
|
Hashimoto, N.,
Zhang, W. R.,
and Goldstein, B. J.
(1992)
Biochem. J.
284,
569-576
|
| 29.
|
Zhang, Z. Y.,
Walsh, A. B.,
Wu, L.,
McNamara, D. J.,
Dobrusin, E. M.,
and Miller, W. T.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
5386-5392[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 30.
|
Rhee, S. G.,
Suh, P. G.,
Ryu, S. H.,
and Lee, S. Y.
(1989)
Science
244,
546-550[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 31.
|
Rhee, S. G.
(1991)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
16,
297-301[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 32.
|
Yang, L. J.,
Rhee, S. G.,
and Williamson, J. R.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
7156-7162[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 33.
|
Pei, Z.,
Yang, L.,
and Williamson, J. R.
(1996)
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
228,
802-806[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 34.
|
Tyson, J. J.,
Novak, B.,
Odell, G. M.,
Chen, K.,
and Thron, C. D.
(1996)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
21,
89-96[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 35.
|
Dahmane, A.,
Gil, S.,
Brehier, A.,
Davy, J.,
and Feger, J.
(1996)
Eur. J. Cell. Biol.
69,
335-342[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 36.
|
O'Rourke, M. F.,
Tuma, D. J.,
and Casey, C. A.
(1997)
Biochem. Pharmacol.
53,
1445-1450[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 37.
|
Thoresen, G. H.,
Guren, T. K.,
Sandnes, D.,
Peak, M.,
Agius, L.,
and Christoffersen, T.
(1998)
J. Cell. Physiol.
175,
10-18[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 38.
|
Hearon, J. Z.
(1953)
Bull. Math. Biophys.
15,
121-141[CrossRef]
|
| 39.
|
Kholodenko, B. N.,
Schuster, S.,
Garcia, J.,
Westerhoff, H. V.,
and Cascante, M.
(1998)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta.
1379,
337-352[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 40.
|
Greenfield, C.,
Hiles, I.,
Waterfield, M. D.,
Federwisch, M.,
Wollmer, A.,
Blundell, T. L.,
and McDonald, N.
(1989)
EMBO J.
8,
4115-4123[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 41.
|
Gunther, N.,
Betzel, C.,
and Weber, W.
(1990)
J. Biol. Chem.
265,
22082-22085[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 42.
|
Brown, P. M.,
Debanne, M. T.,
Grothe, S.,
Bergsma, D.,
Caron, M.,
Kay, C.,
and O'Connor-McCourt, M. D.
(1994)
Eur. J. Biochem.
225,
223-233[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 43.
|
Zhou, M.,
Felder, S.,
Rubinstein, M.,
Hurwitz, D. R.,
Ullrich, A.,
Lax, I.,
and Schlessinger, J.
(1993)
Biochemistry
32,
8193-8198[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 44.
|
Waters, C. M.,
Oberg, K. C.,
Carpenter, G.,
and Overholser, K. A.
(1990)
Biochemistry
29,
3563-3569[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 45.
|
Myers, A. C.,
Kovach, J. S.,
and Vuk-Pavlovic, S.
(1987)
J. Biol. Chem.
262,
6494-6499[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 46.
|
Kusumi, A.,
Sako, Y.,
and Yamamoto, M.
(1993)
Biophys. J.
65,
2021-2040[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 47.
|
Liebman, P. A.,
and Entine, G.
(1974)
Science
185,
457-459[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 48.
|
Gupta, B. D.,
and Williams, T. P.
(1990)
J. Physiol. (Lond.)
430,
483-496[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 49.
|
Cherry, R. J.
(1979)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta.
559,
289-327[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 50.
|
Naqvi, K. R.
(1974)
Chem. Phys. Lett.
28,
280-284[CrossRef]
|
| 51.
|
Torney, D. C.,
and McConnell, H. M.
(1983)
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A
387,
147-170[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 52.
|
Lamb, T. D.,
and Pugh, E. N., Jr.
(1992)
J. Physiol. (Lond.)
449,
719-758[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 53.
|
Pugh, E. N., Jr.,
and Lamb, T. D.
(1993)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta.
1141,
111-149[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 54.
|
Posner, I.,
Engel, M.,
and Levitzki, A.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
20638-20647[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 55.
|
Posner, I.,
and Levitzki, A.
(1994)
FEBS Lett.
353,
155-161[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 56.
|
Litwin, C. M.,
Gendreau, M.,
and Wang, J. H.
(1992)
FEBS. Lett.
309,
275-278[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 57.
|
Hubler, L.,
Gill, G. N.,
and Bertics, P. J.
(1989)
J. Biol. Chem.
264,
1558-1564[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 58.
|
Argetsinger, L. S.,
and Shafer, J. A.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
22095-22101[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 59.
|
Dechert, U.,
Adam, M.,
Harder, K. W.,
Clark-Lewis, I.,
and Jirik, F.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
5602-5611[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 60.
|
Northrup, S. H.,
and Erickson, H. P.
(1992)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
89,
3338-3342[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 61.
|
Koren, R.,
and Hammes, G. G.
(1976)
Biochemistry
15,
1165-1171[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 62.
|
Eltis, L. D.,
Herbert, R. G.,
Barker, P. D.,
Mauk, A. G.,
and Northrup, S. H.
(1991)
Biochemistry
30,
3663-3674[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 63.
|
Panayotou, G.,
Gish, G.,
End, P.,
Truong, O.,
Gout, I.,
Dhand, R.,
Fry, M. J.,
Hiles, I.,
Pawson, T.,
and Waterfield, M. D.
(1993)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
13,
3567-3576[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 64.
|
Felder, S.,
Zhou, M.,
Hu, P.,
Urena, J.,
Ullrich, A.,
Chaudhuri, M.,
White, M.,
Shoelson, S. E.,
and Schlessinger, J.
(1993)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
13,
1449-1455[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 65.
|
Ladbury, J. E.,
Lemmon, M. A.,
Zhou, M.,
Green, J.,
Botfield, M. C.,
and Schlessinger, J.
(1995)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
92,
3199-3203[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 66.
|
Payne, G.,
Shoelson, S. E.,
Gish, G. D.,
Pawson, T.,
and Walsh, C. T.
(1993)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
90,
4902-4906[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 67.
|
Piccione, E.,
Case, R. D.,
Domchek, S. M.,
Hu, P.,
Chaudhuri, M.,
Backer, J. M.,
Schlessinger, J.,
and Shoelson, S. E.
(1993)
Biochemistry
32,
3197-3202[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 68.
|
Marengere, L. E.,
Songyang, Z.,
Gish, G. D.,
Schaller, M. D.,
Parsons, J. T.,
Stern, M. J.,
Cantley, L. C.,
and Pawson, T.
(1994)
Nature
369,
502-505[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 69.
|
Lemmon, M. A.,
and Ladbury, J. E.
(1994)
Biochemistry
33,
5070-5076[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 70.
|
Sastry, L.,
Lin, W.,
Wong, W. T.,
Di Fiore, P. P.,
Scoppa, C. A.,
and King, C. R.
(1995)
Oncogene
11,
1107-1112[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 71.
|
Chook, Y. M.,
Gish, G. D.,
Kay, C. M.,
Pai, E. F.,
and Pawson, T.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
30472-30478[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 72.
|
Okada, S.,
Yamauchi, K.,
and Pessin, J. E.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
20737-20741[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 73.
|
Denhardt, D. T.
(1996)
Biochem. J.
318,
729-747
|
| 74.
|
Joneson, T.,
and Bar-Sagi, D.
(1997)
J. Mol. Med.
75,
587-593[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 75.
|
McCormick, F.
(1994)
Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
4,
71-76[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 76.
|
Haugh, J. M.,
and Lauffenburger, D. A.
(1997)
Biophys. J.
72,
2014-2031[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 77.
|
Rameh, L. E.,
Rhee, S. G.,
Spokes, K.,
Kazlauskas, A.,
Cantley, L. C.,
and Cantley, L. G.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
23750-23757[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 78.
|
Barkai, N.,
and Leibler, S.
(1997)
Nature
387,
913-917[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 79.
|
Kholodenko, B. N.,
and Westerhoff, H. V.
(1995)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
20,
52-54[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 80.
|
Chaidarun, S. S.,
Eggo, M. C.,
Stewart, P. M.,
and Sheppard, M. C.
(1994)
J. Endocrinol.
143,
489-496[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 81.
|
Yarden, Y.,
and Schlessinger, J.
(1987)
Biochemistry
26,
1443-1451[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 82.
|
Yarden, Y.,
and Schlessinger, J.
(1987)
Biochemistry
26,
1434-1442[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 83.
|
Sorokin, A.,
Lemmon, M. A.,
Ullrich, A.,
and Schlessinger, J.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
9752-9759[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 84.
|
Wiley, H. S.,
Walsh, B. J.,
and Lund, K. A.
(1989)
J. Biol. Chem.
264,
18912-18920[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 85.
|
Wofsy, C.,
Goldstein, B.,
Lund, K.,
and Wiley, H. S.
(1992)
Biophys. J.
63,
98-110[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 86.
|
Mayo, K. H.,
Nunez, M.,
Burke, C.,
Starbuck, C.,
Lauffenburger, D.,
and Savage, C. R., Jr.
(1989)
J. Biol. Chem.
264,
17838-17844[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 87.
|
Roy, L. M.,
Gittinger, C. K.,
and Landreth, G. E.
(1989)
J. Cell. Physiol.
140,
295-304[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 88.
|
van Bergen en Henegouwen, P. M.,
den Hartigh, J. C.,
Romeyn, P.,
Verkleij, A. J.,
and Boonstra, J.
(1992)
Exp. Cell. Res.
199,
90-97[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 89.
|
den Hartigh, J. C.,
van Bergen en Henegouwen, P. M.,
Verkleij, A. J.,
and Boonstra, J.
(1992)
J. Cell. Biol.
119,
349-355[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 90.
|
Van der Heyden, M. A.,
Nievers, M.,
Verkleij, A. J.,
Boonstra, J.,
and Van Bergen en Henegouwen, P. M.
(1997)
FEBS Lett.
410,
265-268[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 91.
|
Ringerike, T.,
Stang, E.,
Johannessen, L. E.,
Sandnes, D.,
Levy, F. O.,
and Madshus, I. H.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
16639-16642[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 92.
|
Hubbard, S. R.,
Mohammadi, M.,
and Schlessinger, J.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
11987-11990[Free Full Text]
|
| 93.
|
Carver, R. S.,
Mathew, P. M.,
and Russell, W. E.
(1997)
Endocrinology
138,
5195-5201[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 94.
|
Alroy, I.,
and Yarden, Y.
(1997)
FEBS Lett.
410,
83-86[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 95.
|
Earp, H. S.,
Dawson, T. L.,
Li, X.,
and Yu, H.
(1995)
Breast Cancer. Res. Treat.
35,
115-132[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 96.
|
Foster, W. R.,
Ungar, L. H.,
and Schwaber, J. S.
(1993)
J. Neurol.
70,
2502-2518
|
Copyright © 1999 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. Casillas-Ramirez, A. Zaouali, S. Padrissa-Altes, I. Ben Mosbah, A. Pertosa, I. Alfany-Fernandez, M. Bintanel-Morcillo, C. Xaus, A. Rimola, J. Rodes, et al.
Insulin-Like Growth Factor and Epidermal Growth Factor Treatment: New Approaches to Protecting Steatotic Livers against Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury
Endocrinology,
July 1, 2009;
150(7):
3153 - 3161.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
B. Schoeberl, E. A. Pace, J. B. Fitzgerald, B. D. Harms, L. Xu, L. Nie, B. Linggi, A. Kalra, V. Paragas, R. Bukhalid, et al.
Therapeutically Targeting ErbB3: A Key Node in Ligand-Induced Activation of the ErbB Receptor-PI3K Axis
Sci. Signal.,
June 30, 2009;
2(77):
ra31 - ra31.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
E. C. Stites and K. S. Ravichandran
A Systems Perspective of Ras Signaling in Cancer
Clin. Cancer Res.,
March 1, 2009;
15(5):
1510 - 1513.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Oyama, H. Kozuka-Hata, S. Tasaki, K. Semba, S. Hattori, S. Sugano, J.-i. Inoue, and T. Yamamoto
Temporal Perturbation of Tyrosine Phosphoproteome Dynamics Reveals the System-wide Regulatory Networks
Mol. Cell. Proteomics,
February 1, 2009;
8(2):
226 - 231.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. Li, C. Y. Ung, X. H. Ma, B. W. Li, B. C. Low, Z. W. Cao, and Y. Z. Chen
Simulation of crosstalk between small GTPase RhoA and EGFR-ERK signaling pathway via MEKK1
Bioinformatics,
February 1, 2009;
25(3):
358 - 364.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. E. Purvis, M. S. Chatterjee, L. F. Brass, and S. L. Diamond
A molecular signaling model of platelet phosphoinositide and calcium regulation during homeostasis and P2Y1 activation
Blood,
November 15, 2008;
112(10):
4069 - 4079.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
L. Dematte, C. Priami, and A. Romanel
The Beta Workbench: a computational tool to study the dynamics of biological systems
Brief Bioinform,
September 1, 2008;
9(5):
437 - 449.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. Breitling, D. Gilbert, M. Heiner, and R. Orton
A structured approach for the engineering of biochemical network models, illustrated for signalling pathways
Brief Bioinform,
September 1, 2008;
9(5):
404 - 421.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
E. J. Joslin, L. K. Opresko, A. Wells, H. S. Wiley, and D. A. Lauffenburger
EGF-receptor-mediated mammary epithelial cell migration is driven by sustained ERK signaling from autocrine stimulation
J. Cell Sci.,
October 15, 2007;
120(20):
3688 - 3699.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. Sengupta, M. J. Ruano, F. Tebar, U. Golebiewska, I. Zaitseva, C. Enrich, S. McLaughlin, and A. Villalobo
Membrane-permeable Calmodulin Inhibitors (e.g. W-7/W-13) Bind to Membranes, Changing the Electrostatic Surface Potential: DUAL EFFECT OF W-13 ON EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR ACTIVATION
J. Biol. Chem.,
March 16, 2007;
282(11):
8474 - 8486.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
F. J Doyle III and J. Stelling
Systems interface biology
J R Soc Interface,
October 22, 2006;
3(10):
603 - 616.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
F. Hua, S. Hautaniemi, R. Yokoo, and D. A Lauffenburger
Integrated mechanistic and data-driven modelling for multivariate analysis of signalling pathways
J R Soc Interface,
August 22, 2006;
3(9):
515 - 526.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. Kiyatkin, E. Aksamitiene, N. I. Markevich, N. M. Borisov, J. B. Hoek, and B. N. Kholodenko
Scaffolding Protein Grb2-associated Binder 1 Sustains Epidermal Growth Factor-induced Mitogenic and Survival Signaling by Multiple Positive Feedback Loops
J. Biol. Chem.,
July 21, 2006;
281(29):
19925 - 19938.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
W. S. Hlavacek, J. R. Faeder, M. L. Blinov, R. G. Posner, M. Hucka, and W. Fontana
Rules for Modeling Signal-Transduction Systems
Sci. Signal.,
July 18, 2006;
2006(344):
re6 - re6.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. McLaughlin, S. O. Smith, M. J. Hayman, and D. Murray
An Electrostatic Engine Model for Autoinhibition and Activation of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR/ErbB) Family
J. Gen. Physiol.,
June 27, 2005;
126(1):
41 - 53.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
Y.-i. Ozaki, S. Sasagawa, and S. Kuroda
Dynamic Characteristics of Transient Responses
J. Biochem.,
June 1, 2005;
137(6):
659 - 663.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. Kurata, K. Masaki, Y. Sumida, and R. Iwasaki
CADLIVE dynamic simulator: Direct link of biochemical networks to dynamic models
Genome Res.,
April 1, 2005;
15(4):
590 - 600.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
G. Liu, M. T. Swihart, and S. Neelamegham
Sensitivity, principal component and flux analysis applied to signal transduction: the case of epidermal growth factor mediated signaling
Bioinformatics,
April 1, 2005;
21(7):
1194 - 1202.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
B. S. Hendriks, G. Orr, A. Wells, H. S. Wiley, and D. A. Lauffenburger
Parsing ERK Activation Reveals Quantitatively Equivalent Contributions from Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor and HER2 in Human Mammary Epithelial Cells
J. Biol. Chem.,
February 18, 2005;
280(7):
6157 - 6169.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. J. Filion and A. S. Popel
Intracoronary administration of FGF-2: a computational model of myocardial deposition and retention
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol,
January 1, 2005;
288(1):
H263 - H279.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Bentele, I. Lavrik, M. Ulrich, S. Stosser, D.W. Heermann, H. Kalthoff, P.H. Krammer, and R. Eils
Mathematical modeling reveals threshold mechanism in CD95-induced apoptosis
J. Cell Biol.,
September 13, 2004;
166(6):
839 - 851.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. Suenaga, A. B. Kiyatkin, M. Hatakeyama, N. Futatsugi, N. Okimoto, Y. Hirano, T. Narumi, A. Kawai, R. Susukita, T. Koishi, et al.
Tyr-317 Phosphorylation Increases Shc Structural Rigidity and Reduces Coupling of Domain Motions Remote from the Phosphorylation Site as Revealed by Molecular Dynamics Simulations
J. Biol. Chem.,
February 6, 2004;
279(6):
4657 - 4662.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. E. Zak, G. E. Gonye, J. S. Schwaber, and F. J. Doyle III
Importance of Input Perturbations and Stochastic Gene Expression in the Reverse Engineering of Genetic Regulatory Networks: Insights From an Identifiability Analysis of an In Silico Network
Genome Res.,
November 1, 2003;
13(11):
2396 - 2405.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
B. S. Hendriks, L. K. Opresko, H. S. Wiley, and D. Lauffenburger
Quantitative Analysis of HER2-mediated Effects on HER2 and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Endocytosis: DISTRIBUTION OF HOMO- AND HETERODIMERS DEPENDS ON RELATIVE HER2 LEVELS
J. Biol. Chem.,
June 20, 2003;
278(26):
23343 - 23351.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
B. N Kholodenko
Four-dimensional organization of protein kinase signaling cascades: the roles of diffusion, endocytosis and molecular motors
J. Exp. Biol.,
June 15, 2003;
206(12):
2073 - 2082.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Schenk, E. Hintermann, M. Bilban, N. Koshikawa, C. Hojilla, R. Khokha, and V. Quaranta
Binding to EGF receptor of a laminin-5 EGF-like fragment liberated during MMP-dependent mammary gland involution
J. Cell Biol.,
April 14, 2003;
161(1):
197 - 209.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
B. N. Kholodenko, A. Kiyatkin, F. J. Bruggeman, E. Sontag, H. V. Westerhoff, and J. B. Hoek
Untangling the wires: A strategy to trace functional interactions in signaling and gene networks
PNAS,
October 1, 2002;
99(20):
12841 - 12846.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. D. Zieske, H. Takahashi, A. E. K. Hutcheon, and A. C. Dalbone
Activation of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor during Corneal Epithelial Migration
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.,
May 1, 2000;
41(6):
1346 - 1355.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Y. Shvartsman, M. P. Hagan, A. Yacoub, P. Dent, H. S. Wiley, and D. A. Lauffenburger
Autocrine loops with positive feedback enable context-dependent cell signaling
Am J Physiol Cell Physiol,
March 1, 2002;
282(3):
C545 - C559.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
Copyright © 1999 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
|