![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 17, 14657-14665, April 26, 2002
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the
Received for publication, December 12, 2001, and in revised form, January 15, 2002
Human basement membrane heparan sulfate
proteoglycan (HSPG) perlecan binds and activates fibroblast growth
factor (FGF)-2 through its heparan sulfate (HS) chains. Here we show
that perlecans immunopurified from three cellular sources possess
different HS structures and subsequently different FGF-2 binding and
activating capabilities. Perlecan isolated from human umbilical
arterial endothelial cells (HUAEC) and a continuous endothelial cell
line (C11 STH) bound similar amounts of FGF-2 either alone or complexed with FGFR Perlecan is a multidomain, heparan sulfate proteoglycan
(HSPG)1 expressed in most
extracellular matrices and basement membranes. Perlecan consists of
five distinct domains. Domains II-V are homologous to protein motifs
found in epidermal growth factor, neural cell adhesion molecule
(NCAM), and laminin, although domain I is unique to perlecan and
contains three potential heparan sulfate (HS) chain attachment sites.
Each of these domains has exhibited one or more binding sites for a
number of ligands including basement membrane components (1-3), cell
adhesion molecules (4), and growth factors (5-8). Binding of these
ligands gives perlecan a diverse range of potential functions including
extracellular matrix formation (9), thrombosis (10), cellular uptake
(11, 12), chondrogenesis (13), tumor growth (5, 14, 15), and
angiogenesis (5, 16).
The importance of perlecan to mammalian development has been
demonstrated recently (17, 18) by the results of two perlecan gene
knockout experiments in mice. Nearly half of all perlecan null mice die
at embryonic day 10.5, the normal onset of perlecan expression, or just
after birth with severe defects including aberrant basement membrane
formation (particularly in the heart), defective cephalic and long bone
development, and achondroplasia (17, 18). Similar abnormalities in
cartilage development and bone ossification have been identified in
mice with activating mutations in fibroblast growth factor (FGF)
receptor 3. As perlecan co-localizes with this receptor (17), it has
been suggested to act as a negative regulator of FGFR3 signaling,
possibly by sequestering and inactivating its ligand, fibroblast growth
factor 1 (FGF-1), via the HS chains.
Perlecan has also been shown to regulate FGF-2 activity in
vitro (16) and in vivo through its HS chains (5, 16).
HS (or heparin, a widely available analogue of sulfated domains in HS)
is essential to FGF-2 cell signaling, as demonstrated by the fact that
addition of heparin or HSPG was shown to restore growth in
FGF-responsive HSPG-deficient cells (19-21). FGF-2 interacts with a
specific HS sequence that consists of a hexasaccharide containing
2-O-sulfated iduronic acid (IdoUA(2S)) and
N-sulfated glucosamine (GlcNS) (22). For receptor signaling,
a dodecasaccharide containing this binding region as well as
6-O-sulfated GlcNS residues is also required (23). The role
of heparin/HS in enhancing FGF-2 binding and signaling remains
controversial. Some studies (22, 24) suggest that heparin/HS interacts
with both FGF-2 and FGFR, whereas others (25-27) suggest that
heparin/HS induces FGF-2 dimerization and increases the affinity of the
complex for FGFRs. In either case heparin/HS is believed to facilitate
FGFR dimerization and subsequent activation.
The ability to stimulate FGF-2 activity relies on the primary sequence,
structure, and organization of HS, which is dependent on cell type and
differentiation state (16, 28). This has been shown conclusively using
HS from different cell and tissue types (29, 30); however, little work
has emerged on the individual contributions to growth factor binding
and signaling by specific HSPGs derived from different cell types. We
have demonstrated previously (2) that perlecan HS chains isolated from
arterial and venous endothelial cells differed in their ability to bind FGF-2 and to adhere to vascular cells. In this study we have
investigated the HS chains of perlecans isolated from three different
cell types using binding assays, the BaF3 cell system, and HS
structural analysis techniques. We report that the source of perlecan
significantly influences its HS substructure and subsequently its
ability to bind FGF-2 and to promote FGF-2 signaling through FGFRs.
Materials
Heparin (H149, from porcine intestinal mucosa),
N-hydroxysuccinimide-biotin (170-6529), fibronectin (product
F4795, bovine), and RPMI 1640 medium, EDTA, phenylmethylsulfonyl
fluoride, benzamidine, and Tris (free base) were purchased from Sigma.
BIAcore SA chips, HBS-EP buffer, Superose 6 HR 10/30 column,
pre-packed, disposable PD-10 columns and
D-[3H]glucosamine hydrochloride were
purchased from Amersham Biosciences. Tissue culture plasticware was
from Nunc or Corning Glass via Medos Co., Lidcombe, New South Wales,
Australia. Fetal calf serum (FCS) was a P. A. Biologicals product,
Sydney, Australia. [methyl-3H]Thymidine was
purchased from ICN Biomedicals, Seven Hills, New South Wales,
Australia. Recombinant human FGF-2 (Escherichia coli), FGF
R1 Cell Culture
The spontaneously transformed human umbilical venous endothelial
cell line, C11 STH, was provided by Dr. J. Gamble of the Hanson Cancer
Research Center, Adelaide, South Australia (31). Human umbilical
arterial endothelial cells (HUAEC) and C11 STH were cultured as
described (6). The human colon carcinoma cell line WiDr was cultured in
Media 199 supplemented with penicillin/streptomycin and 10% FCS. For
the production of [3H]heparan sulfate chains, cells were
labeled with [3H]glucosamine (50 µCi per 100 ml of
standard media) for 72 h. Conditioned medium was collected,
filtered, and stored at Perlecan Isolation and Characterization
Human perlecan was immunopurified from conditioned medium,
characterized using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and checked for
125I-FGF-2 binding as described by Whitelock et
al. (2).
Immunoprecipitation of Perlecans Bound to
125I-FGF-2
Perlecan was immunoprecipitated essentially as described by
Whitelock et al. (6) with the following modifications.
Purified perlecan (1 µg/ml, 100 µl) was incubated with
125I-FGF-2 (1 × 105 cpm) for 1 h at
RT. After washing with PBS, 100-µl aliquots of rabbit anti-mouse
antibody conjugated to protein A-Sepharose were incubated with either
mAbA76 (20 µg/tube), or perlecan·FGF-2 samples for 2 h.
Perlecan·FGF-2 samples were then added to pre-washed A76-protein
A-Sepharose beads and incubated at RT for 2 h. The beads were
washed extensively with PBS and bound counts/min determined on an
automated gamma counter (Wallac, Finland).
Biomolecular Interaction Analysis of Perlecans Using the
BIAcore
Perlecan was biotinylated essentially as described by Cole
et al. (32). A 100 µg/ml solution of perlecan in 0.1 M NaHCO3, pH 8.0, was incubated with a 50-fold
molar excess of N-hydroxysuccinimide-biotin for 3 h at
RT. Biotinylation was stopped by the addition of 2 M
NH4Cl, and excess biotin was removed by dialysis against
PBS for 48 h. Ligand binding experiments were performed using a
BIAcore 2000 instrument (Amersham Biosciences). The BIAcore technique has been described previously (33). Similar amounts of biotinylated perlecans (10 µg/ml) in PBS were coupled to different flow cells of a
streptavidin-derivatized sensor chip at a flow rate of 5 µl/min, as
determined by the change in response units. Binding experiments were
performed at a flow rate of 20 µl/min at 25 °C. The injected
volume of analyte was 55 µl, and the kinject function was
used with a programmed dissociation time of 150 s. For titration of FGF-2 against bound perlecans, stock solutions of FGF-2 were serially diluted in HBS-EP (0.01 M HEPES, 0.15 M NaCl, 3 mM EDTA, 0.005% (v/v) polysorbate
20, pH 7.4) running buffer to concentrations in the interval 6.25-400
nM. Competitive binding experiments were performed on 100 nM FGF-2 incubated with or without 100 mM NaCl or 0.1 µg/ml heparin. FGFR1 HS-Oligosaccharide Preparation
HS Chain Liberation--
HS chains were liberated from the
protein core by incubation of [3H]perlecan (1 × 105 cpm) in Milli-Q H2O with 200 µg/ml
Pronase for 8 h at 37 °C. Free HS chains were de-salted by size
fractionation on a PD-10 column into Milli-Q H2O and lyophilized.
Enzymatic Depolymerization of Perlecan HS--
HS chains (1 × 104 cpm) were depolymerized with heparinase I or
heparinase III at a concentration of 0.025 units/ml in PBS. Samples
were incubated for 16 h at 37 °C, and the reaction was stopped
by heating at 100 °C for 5 min.
Deaminative Scission with Nitrous Acid--
Cleavage of intact
perlecan HS chains by HNO2 treatment at low pH (pH 1.5) was
carried out by the method of Shively and Conrad (34). Briefly,
equal volumes of 1 M Ba(NO2)2 and 1 M H2SO4 were mixed and centrifuged
for 5 min at 10,000 rpm to remove precipitated BaSO4. The
resulting HNO2 (100 µl) was added to lyophilized
[3H]perlecan HS samples (1 × 104 cpm)
and incubated for 30 min at RT. Reaction was stopped by the addition of
2 M Na2CO3 (10 µl).
Gel Filtration Chromatography of Intact and Depolymerized HS
Samples
Superose 6 Size Exclusion Fast Protein Liquid
Chromatography--
Superose 6 gel filtration was performed
essentially as described by Melrose and Ghosh (35). A Superose TM 6 pre-packed HR 10/30 (Amersham Biosciences) column was equilibrated with
0.5 M CH3COONa, 0.05% Tween 20, pH 7.5, at 0.4 ml/min. Whole perlecan HS and heparinase I/III-cleaved chains (1 × 104 cpm; 200 µl) were injected onto the column and
2-min (0.8 ml) fractions collected. Aliquots of each fraction were
measured in a Packard scintillation counter to generate an elution profile.
Bio-Gel P-10 Gel Permeation Chromatography--
Separation of
heparinase III and nitrous acid cleavage-resistant oligosaccharides was
performed on a Bio-Gel P-10 column (120 × 1 cm) equilibrated with
0.1 M NaCl, pH 8. Heparinase III- or HNO2-cleaved HS chains (1 × 104 cpm; 200 µl) were loaded onto the column and eluted at 4 ml/h. 1-ml fractions
were collected, and radioactivity was determined using liquid
scintillation. The percentage of susceptible linkages in the size
groups corresponding to degree of polymerization dp2-dp12 (dp = degree of polymerization, or number of saccharide units, e.g. dp2 = disaccharide) resolved using Bio-Gel P-10 is
given by the formula An/n, where An is
the percentage of the total 3H counts eluting in a specific
peak, and n is the number of disaccharide repeat units in
the oligosaccharide corresponding to that peak.
Disaccharide Analysis--
Perlecan [3H]HS chains
(5 × 104 cpm) were digested with a combination of
heparinases I-III (0.1 unit/ml, 16 h at 37 °C). Disaccharides (50-90% of total HS counts) were recovered from a Bio-Gel P-2 column
(120 × 1 cm) eluted at 4 ml/h in 0.1 M
NH4HCO3 with collection of 1-ml fractions.
Disaccharides were analyzed by strong anion-exchange high pressure
liquid chromatography on a ProPac PA-1 column eluted with a linear
gradient of 0-1 M NaCl in MilliQ water, pH 3.5, at a flow
rate of 1 ml/min (36). Fractions of 0.5 ml were counted, and
disaccharides were identified by comparison of elution positions with
known standards.
Bioactivity of Perlecans with FGF-2--
The ability of the
different perlecans to stimulate a heparin-dependent
biological response to FGF-2 was examined in HSPG-deficient myeloid
cell lines (BaF3) expressing splice variants of the FGFR1 isoform
(FGFR1b and -c) and of the FGFR3 isoform (FGFR3c) (20). FGFR1b/c and
FGFR3c cell lines were maintained in RPMI 1640 medium, supplemented
with 10% FCS, 10% conditioned media from WEHI-3BD Statistical Analyses
Significant differences were determined using analysis of
variance Student-Newman-Keuls tests. Unless otherwise stated, results from all static binding studies and BaF3 experiments are expressed as
the means ± S.E. of three and four observations, respectively. All experiments were performed at least twice.
Interaction of Perlecans with FGF-2
Perlecans derived from either HUAEC, C11 STH, or WiDr were
assessed for their ability to bind soluble FGF-2 after coating wells of
a 96-well microtiter plate with perlecan (Fig.
1A) or by immunoprecipitation
of the complex in conditioned medium with anti-perlecan antibodies
(Fig. 1B). In both assays, WiDr perlecan bound significantly
more 125I-FGF-2 than either HUAEC or C11 STH perlecan (Fig.
1A, p < 0.05; Fig. 1B,
p < 0.001), indicating that WiDr perlecan-HS possessed a greater number of FGF-2-binding sites than either HUAEC or C11 STH
perlecan-HS. Perlecan derived from either endothelial cell line bound
similar amounts of 125I-FGF-2 with C11 STH perlecan binding
a little more when coated onto microtiter wells (Fig. 1A).
This difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
BIAcore was used to assess binding of FGF-2 to immobilized perlecans
under flow conditions. Fig. 2 shows a
composite sensorgram of FGF-2 binding the three different perlecans.
Fig. 2, curve a, shows the binding to HUAEC perlecan, and
curve b indicates the binding to C11 STH perlecan, and
curve c shows the binding to WiDr perlecan. Both HUAEC and
C11 STH perlecans bound FGF-2 very efficiently and to a similar extent.
In contrast to the static assays, immobilized WiDr perlecan exhibited
very little binding of FGF-2, suggesting immobilization of WiDr to the
BIAcore chip has a negative effect on FGF-2 binding, possibly due to
steric constraints. The addition of 5 mM MgCl2
to the binding buffer had no effect on binding (data not shown). The
amount of binding demonstrated to WiDr perlecan was similar to that
seen to the protein core of either C11 STH or HUAEC perlecan (Fig.
3, A and B). To
rule out the possibility that the conjugation chemistry had removed the
HS from WiDr perlecan, we confirmed the presence of HS attached to WiDr
perlecan before and after the biotinylation procedure by probing with
the anti-HS antibody, 10E4 (data not shown). The interaction of FGF-2
with HUAEC (Fig. 3A) and C11 STH (Fig. 3B)
perlecan was shown to be HS-dependent with binding reduced
by either the addition of salt (Fig. 3, curves b) or heparin (Fig. 3, curves c) to the binding buffer. There was also
limited binding to the protein core of both the perlecans (Fig. 3,
curves d) most likely due to HS remaining after heparinase
III digestion (see Fig. 7).
Not All Perlecans Are Created Equal
INTERACTIONS WITH FIBROBLAST GROWTH FACTOR (FGF) 2 AND FGF
RECEPTORS*
§,
, and
**
Commonwealth Scientific Industrial
Research Organization (CSIRO) Molecular Science, North Ryde
2113, Australia, ¶ Paterson Institute for Cancer Research,
Christie Hospital, Withington,
Manchester M20 9BX, United Kingdom,
Raymond Purves
Laboratories, The Institute of Bone and Joint Research, Royal North
Shore Hospital, St. Leonards 2065, Australia, and
§ Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering, University
of New South Wales, Kensington 2052, Australia
![]()
ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
1-IIIc or FGFR3
-IIIc. Both perlecans stimulated the growth of BaF3 cell lines expressing FGFR1b/c; however, only HUAEC perlecan stimulated those cells expressing FGFR3c, suggesting that the
source of perlecan confers FGF and FGFR binding specificity. Despite
these differences in FGF-2 activation, the level of 2-O- and 6-O-sulfation was similar for both perlecans.
Interestingly, perlecan isolated from a colon carcinoma cell line that
was capable of binding FGF-2 was incapable of activating any BaF3 cell
line unless the HS was removed from the protein core. The HS chains also exhibited greater bioactivity after digestion with heparinase III.
Collectively, these data clearly demonstrate that the bioactivity of HS
decorating a single PG is dependent on its cell source and that subtle
changes in structure including secondary interactions have a profound
effect on biological activity.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
(IIIc)/Fc chimera (FGFR1
-IIIc), and recombinant mouse FGF
R3
(IIIc)/Fc chimera (FGFR3
-IIIc) were from R & D Systems, obtained though BioScientific, Gymea, New South Wales, Australia. FR1b-5 (FGFR1b), FR1c-11 (FGFR1c), and FR31c-4 (FGFR3c) were kindly provided by Dr. David Ornitz (St. Louis, MO). WEHI-3BD
cells were kindly provided by the Ludwig Institute (Melbourne, Australia). Heparinase I (Flavobacterium heparinum; heparin
lyase EC 4.2.2.7) heparinase II (F. heparinum; heparan
sulfate lyase, no EC) and heparinase III (F. heparinum;
heparitin-sulfate lyase EC 4.2.2.8) were purchased from Seikagaku Corp.
through Sapphire Biosciences, Alexandria, New South Wales, Australia.
Bio-Gel P-10 and P-2 (fine grade) were from Bio-Rad. Details of the
production and characterization of the anti-perlecan core-protein
monoclonal antibodies A71 and A76 used in this study are provided
elsewhere (6).
20 °C.
-IIIc and FGFR3
-IIIc fusion proteins (50 nM) were incubated with or without 50 nM
FGF-2 in 0.01 M HEPES, 0.15 M NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 0.01% Tween 20, pH 7.4, running
buffer for 5 min prior to injection. The perlecan surface was
regenerated with a 30-s pulse of 1 M NaCl or 100 µg/ml
heparin. Sensograms were analyzed using the BIAcore 2000 Evaluation
Software 3.0. Sensograms were fitted with separate differential rate
equations for the parts of the curve representing association and
dissociation. The closeness of fit for each kinetic parameter is
described by the statistical value
2.
cells, G418 (400 µg/ml), and penicillin/streptomycin. Mitogenic assays were performed essentially as described by Ornitz et
al. (20). Briefly, cells were washed, resuspended in RPMI 1640 medium containing 10% FCS, and seeded into 96-well plates at 6 × 105 cells/50 µl/well. The volume in the wells was made up
to 100 µl with RPMI 1640 medium containing final concentrations of 2 µg/ml heparin or 1.25 µg/ml perlecan and 5 nM FGF-2.
For the free HS chain assay, whole HS chains or HS chains digested with
heparinase I or heparinase III were added to a final concentration of 5 µg/ml. Plates were then incubated at 37 °C for 40 h. Cell
proliferation was assayed by [3H]thymidine uptake with
0.5 µCi of [3H]thymidine in 20 µl of media being
added to each well and incubated for 6 h. Cells were pelleted in
the wells by centrifugation at 1000 rpm for 5 min and the supernatant
flicked into waste. Cells were then washed three times by the addition
of 200 µl of PBS per well and centrifuged followed by flicking to
waste. After the final wash, cells were resuspended in 100 µl of PBS,
vortexed in 2 ml of scintillation fluid, and counted on an automated
scintillation liquid analyzer (Packard Instrument Co.).
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (17K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Interaction of 125I-FGF-2 with
solid and solution phase immunopurified perlecans isolated from
different cell types. A, HUAEC, C11 STH, and WiDr perlecans
(20 µg/ml) were coated onto the wells of polyvinyl 96-well plates for
2 h at RT and blocked with 3% bovine serum albumin in PBS prior
to incubation with 125I-FGF-2 (7 × 104
cpm; 1% bovine serum albumin, 0.5% CHAPS/PBS) for 2 h. Plates
were washed, and the wells were cut out and counted on a gamma counter.
B, HUAEC, C11 STH, and WiDr perlecans were incubated with
125I-FGF-2 for 2 h at RT, followed by
immunoprecipitation with MabA76-protein A-Sepharose. The beads were
washed extensively with PBS and counted on an automated gamma counter.
Values are the mean of two separate experiments done in
triplicate.

View larger version (18K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Assessment of the interaction of immobilized
perlecans with soluble FGF-2 using the BIAcore. HUAEC (curve
a), C11 STH (curve b), and WiDr (curve c)
perlecan (10 µg/ml) were biotinylated and applied to different flow
cell surfaces of a streptavidin chip at 5 µl/min. FGF-2 was diluted
in HBS-EP buffer to concentrations between 6.25 and 400 nM
(right to left), and 55-µl samples were
injected at a flow rate of 20 µl/min. All binding experiments were
performed at 25 °C, and the surface was regenerated with a 30-s
pulse of 1 M NaCl (arrow) after each
concentration. Binding curves were analyzed assuming a one to one
reaction using BIAevaluation software 3.0. RU, response
units. The result is representative of at least three separate
experiments.

View larger version (17K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
FGF-2 binding to immobilized perlecans in the
presence of salt and heparin. 100 nM FGF-2 alone
(curve a), or preincubated for 5 min at RT with either 100 mM NaCl (curve b) or 0.5 µg/ml heparin
(curve c), was applied to HUAEC (A) or C11 STH
(B) perlecan-coated surfaces as indicated in the legend of
Fig. 2. Curve d represents binding of 100 nM
FGF-2 to perlecan pretreated with heparinase III (0.025 units/ml,
24 h at 37 °C). The result is representative of at least three
separate experiments. RU, response units.
Experiments using decreasing concentrations of FGF-2 revealed two
association events. An initial reaction that resulted in a rapid rise
in response units followed by a secondary binding that was demonstrated
by the shallower gradient of the binding curve. To assess what might be
causing each of the binding phases, we analyzed the binding of FGF-2 in
the presence of salt (Fig. 3, curves b) or heparin (Fig. 3,
curves c). The initial fast interaction was decreased quite
effectively with either salt or heparin competition, indicating that
this phase of binding between the HS and FGF-2 was ionic. The secondary
binding phase was also reduced in the presence of heparin but increased
in the presence of salt. The HS-FGF-2 interaction was assumed to be
1:1, and kinetic constants were fitted separately to the endothelial
perlecan sensorgrams at FGF-2 concentrations that did not exhibit the
secondary binding phase (<50 nM). HUAEC perlecan gave a
ka
1.0 × 106,
kd
2.0 × 10
3, and
Kd
2 nM (
2
2.9). This was similar to the binding constants calculated for C11
STH perlecan, which gave a ka
1.4 × 106, kd
1.7 × 10
3, and Kd
1 nM
(
2
1.8).
The binding of FGF-2 to C11 STH perlecan (Fig. 3B, curve b) was less affected by salt than FGF-2 binding to HUAEC (Fig. 3A, curve b), although this difference in affinity was not reflected in the kinetic data determined from Fig. 2. In the presence of heparin, both HUAEC (Fig. 3A, curve c) and C11 STH perlecan (Fig. 3B, curve c) bound similar amounts of FGF-2 (approximately 150 response units).
Interaction of Perlecans with FGF-2 and FGF Receptors
In receptor binding experiments, FGFR1
-IIIc did not bind to
either perlecan (Fig. 4, A and
B, curves e), whereas FGFR3
-IIIc bound to both
perlecans (Fig. 4, A and B, curve d).
FGFR3
-IIIc bound more to C11 STH perlecan (Fig. 4B,
curve d) than to HUAEC (Fig. 4A, curve d).
The binding of FGF-2 alone is shown by curves c. FGF-2 was
complexed to either FGFR1
-IIIc or FGFR3
-IIIc and passed over the
immobilized endothelial perlecans. Complexes of the growth factor with
FGFR1
-IIIc (Fig. 4, A and B, curves
b) or FGFR3
-IIIc (Fig. 4, A and B,
curves a) bound to each of the endothelial derived
perlecans. All of these binding events could be inhibited by the
presence of either heparin or salt, and there was limited binding to
the protein core, suggesting that they were
HS-dependent (data not shown).
|
Characterization of HS from Each Perlecan Type
Gel Filtration Chromatography of Intact and Depolymerized Perlecan
HS--
The relative sizes of the HS chains from each of the
affinity-purified perlecans were estimated by chromatography using
Superose 6 fast protein liquid chromatography (35), Fig.
5. The HS isolated from HUAEC, C11 STH,
and WiDr perlecans had similar sizes, which were determined to be ~40
kDa using chondroitin sulfate (CS) standards (35).
|
Enzymatic Cleavage--
Cleavage of these chains with heparinases
was also monitored using Superose 6. After incubation with heparinase
I, the elution positions of the HS chains shifted to the right (Fig.
5B) indicating that each perlecan HS contained heparinase
I-susceptible linkages (GlcNS(±6S)
1-4IdoUA(2S)) (37). WiDr
perlecan HS demonstrated a greater shift in elution volume in this
system and had a broader peak compared with the HS samples derived from
HUAEC or C11 STH perlecan, suggesting it contained more of these
sequences. When the samples were digested with heparinase III (Fig.
5C), which cleaves GlcNR(±6S)
1-4GlcA/IdoUA, where
R = Ac or S (38, 39), all three HS species
eluted in the total volume of the column indicating that each contained
heparinase III-susceptible sequences.
The HS chains and their cleavage products were examined further on a
Bio-Gel P-10 gel filtration column. Heparinase III-digested HS derived
from HUAEC perlecan (Fig. 6A)
and C11 STH perlecan (Fig. 6B) into fragments ranging from
disaccharides (dp2) through decasaccharides (dp10) and larger
(total void, Vo). The major cleavage products of
both HUAEC and C11 STH perlecan HS were disaccharides (71% for HUAEC
and 49% for C11 STH; see Table I),
indicating that the less sulfated domains were mainly contiguous in
both HS types. The C11 STH perlecan HS overall was less susceptible to
heparinase III cleavage than HUAEC perlecan HS containing 18% more of
the dp4-dp12 heparinase-resistant sulfated domains (Table I). HS from
WiDr-derived perlecan, however, was extremely resistant to heparinase
III digestion with only 2% of the radioactivity being present in the
disaccharide peak (dp2), 46% present in the dp4-dp12 fractions, and
the largest proportion, 52%, present in the dp12-Vo
fractions (Table I). Reapplication of the isolated WiDr
Vo peak from the P-10 to a Superose 6 column demonstrated that digestion had in fact occurred, with the material eluting in the Vt. These data indicated the presence of a much greater proportion of heparinase III-resistant sites in the
WiDr HS than seen in the HUAEC or C11 STH perlecan HS and that these
were arranged in longer domains, supporting our initial hypothesis that
WiDr HS had an higher degree of sulfation (Fig. 5B).
|
|
Nitrous Acid Cleavage--
The HS chains of each of the respective
perlecans were subjected to depolymerization using low pH nitrous acid
which cleaves at GlcNS(±6S)
1-4 hexuronic acid (±2S) residues
(34). Nitrous acid cleaved all three types of HS as shown in Fig. 6,
D-F. The three profiles were distinct with the most
degradation occurring with WiDr, followed by C11 STH and then HUAEC
perlecan HS. Although the dp2 peak was higher in the WiDr sample (Fig.
6F) and the dp4 peak higher in the other two samples (Fig.
6, D and E), the actual percentages of these
oligosaccharides, determined by peak area (Table I), were very similar
due to variations in peak width. The dp12-Vo
fractions of HUAEC, however, did contain a higher proportion of
radioactivity, supporting the hypothesis that this HS contains a lower
degree of sulfation compared with the other HS types investigated. When
the total percentage of N-sulfation was calculated for each
of the HS types, WiDr had the highest degree of N-sulfation
at 42%, followed by 31% for C11 STH and then HUAEC at 27% (Table I).
These data support that obtained in the heparinase III digestion
experiments (Fig. 6, A-C).
SAX-High Pressure Liquid Chromatography Compositional Analysis
Combined heparinase I-III digestion of both HUAEC and C11 STH perlecan HS was performed to obtain data on their composition. WiDr HS was not investigated for compositional analysis due to the fact that combined heparinase treatment did not digest the material to disaccharides. The results from these experiments are summarized in Table II. The percentage of N-sulfation calculated using these data agrees very closely with that obtained using nitrous acid digestion (see Table I). C11 STH HS had a slight decrease in unsulfated disaccharides compared with HUAEC HS, which was accounted for by a similar increase in N-sulfated disaccharides. The proportion of 2-O-sulfation in the endothelial derived perlecans was very similar (6.2% for HUAEC and 6.6% for C11 STH), supporting data presented earlier that they also bound similar amounts of FGF-2 (Figs. 1 and 2).
|
Bioactivity of FGF-2 in the Presence of the Perlecans
The ability of the immunopurified perlecans to promote cellular
proliferation in response to exogenous FGF-2 was investigated using
BaF3 cell lines that were either expressing FGFR1b, FGFR1c, or FGFR3c
receptor isotypes. Both the HUAEC and C11 STH perlecan stimulated the
proliferation of the FGFR1b (Fig.
7A) and FGFR1c (Fig.
7B) expressing cells in response to FGF-2, whereas only the
HUAEC perlecan stimulated the proliferation of the FGFR3c-expressing cells (Fig. 7C). Interestingly, under the experimental
conditions used, WiDr perlecan failed to stimulate any of the three
cell lines (Fig. 7, A-C). The same results were obtained
for the three perlecans when they were coated onto the surface of the
tissue culture wells (data not shown).
|
It was of interest to determine what effect, if any, was achieved when
the HS chains were removed from their protein cores, and whether
heparinase digestion altered the bioactivity. HS from HUAEC perlecan
had the same amount of proliferative capacity as the whole
proteoglycan, which was markedly reduced when it was incubated with
heparinase I (Fig. 8). Heparinase III
incubation of HUAEC HS had no effect on its biological activity. HS
from C11 STH perlecan had slightly more activity than whole C11 STH perlecan. However, heparinase I had no effect on the ability of this HS
to potentiate FGF-2 signaling via the FGFR1 receptor (Fig. 8).
Heparinase III also had no effect on C11 STH perlecan HS. Interestingly, when the HS was released from the WiDr perlecan core, it
became active (to roughly half the activity of heparin). This activity
was not affected by heparinase I digestion and, unexpectedly, was
increased when the HS was digested with heparinase III (Fig. 8).
Similar results to these were obtained in activity assays using BaF3
cells that expressed the IIIc isoform of FGFR1 (data not shown).
|
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This paper describes the biological and biochemical differences seen in the HS chains of perlecan immunopurified from two endothelial cell lines and one colon carcinoma cell line. It is clear from this study that not only does the structure and bioactivity of perlecan HS vary depending on cell source but that some forms of perlecan carry HS chains that bind FGF-2 but do not possess biological activity unless they are released from the protein core.
Interactions of FGF-2 and FGF-2 Receptors with Perlecans-- The binding affinity of FGF-2 for C11 STH perlecan, observed here using the BIAcore, was twice that calculated for HUAEC perlecan, which is consistent with our previous study (2). Interestingly, the affinity of endothelial perlecans for FGF-2 (1-2 nM) was similar to that observed (using a BIAcore) for immobilized agrin (2.5 nM) (40), as well as that observed (using binding of 125I-FGF-2) to ryudocan (0.5 nM) (41). However, it should be noted that binding for each of these interactions was assumed to have a stoichiometry of 1:1, whereas HS is likely to possess more than one interactive site. When WiDr perlecan was bound to a microtiter plate, it possessed significantly more FGF-2-binding sites than either of the endothelial perlecans. It has been suggested previously that carcinomas produce HSPGs that can out-compete normal tissue for essential growth factors such as FGF-2, resulting in the formation of new blood vessels supporting tumor growth and progression (42, 43). However the FGF-2 binding ability of WiDr perlecan HS was diminished when it was modified by biotin and coupled to the BIAcore surface, highlighting the necessity to use a variety of techniques to assess the bioactivity of these molecules.
In this study, we have shown that endothelial derived perlecan HS binds
to FGFR3
-IIIc but not FGFR1
-IIIc in the absence of FGF.
Previously, heparin has been shown to bind to FGFR1 and FGFR2 through a
site located in the second immunoglobulin-like domain of the receptor
(24, 44, 45), which has led investigators to hypothesize that HS from
different HSPGs regulates the activity of each of the FGFs in different
ways (46). This has been supported by recent data where glypican-1
bound to FGF-1 but not to FGFR2 (KGFR) (47) and to syndecan-1, which
was shown to interact with FGFR1 (48). HS oligosaccharides have been
shown to either activate or inhibit cell growth depending on which FGF
was used in combination with which FGFR isotype (30, 49, 50). Because
both HUAEC and C11 STH perlecans bind FGF-2-FGFR1c and FGF-2-FGFR3c
complexes with virtually the same affinity, but only HUAEC perlecan
stimulates FGF-2-FGFR3c signaling, then C11 STH HS contains sequences
that do not form efficient FGF-2-FGFR3 signaling complexes. However, it
should be noted that differences between the results obtained using the
BaF3 cells and those obtained using the BIAcore could be due to the
fact that cell-based receptors are likely to be monomeric, whereas the
recombinant FGF receptor fusion proteins used in this study are dimeric.
HS Substructure--
The differences in growth factor
binding observed in this study were due to different HS structures
within the HS chains, as the HS from each of the perlecans were similar
in size. The chain lengths were comparable with that of
perlecan-enriched HS fractions isolated from normal and transformed
epithelial cells (51). Depolymerization of the HS from the endothelial
derived perlecan by enzymatic and by chemical scission suggested that they were predominantly N-acetylated. This was supported by
the compositional data, which showed that the predominant disaccharide in both types of HS was GlcNAc
1,4-uronic acid. The high proportion of this disaccharide, together with the low frequency of
GlcNS(±6S)
1,4 IdoUA2S disaccharides evident from our data are all
consistent with previous reports (23, 52) on endothelial derived HS. The depolymerized HUAEC and C11 STH perlecan HS samples also exhibited typical elution profiles as seen for endothelial cell-derived HS chains
cleaved with nitrous acid or heparinase III; relatively short domains
of N-sulfated disaccharides were separated by extended sequences of predominantly N-acetylated disaccharides (52). Collectively, our data suggested that C11 STH perlecan HS contained more and larger N-sulfated domains than the HUAEC HS. It has
been suggested by previous investigators (23) that the presence of correctly positioned 6-O-sulfated GlcNS residues adjacent to
classic FGF-2-binding sequences (IdoUA(2S)-GlcNS repeat regions) may
control the ability of the HS to potentiate FGF-2 signaling via its
receptor. Different FGFR-FGF combinations may have different specific
requirements for the positioning of such residues, and these
differences may explain why C11 STH did not signal through the FGFR3 receptor.
Surprisingly, extensive regions of the HS from WiDr perlecan were resistant to heparinase III digestion. This is unusual for HS isolated from a matrix HSPG and is something that has not been reported previously. The level of N-sulfation observed in this study was greater than the two endothelial derived perlecans and was similar to that reported for perlecan-enriched fractions isolated from other human carcinoma cell lines (53) suggesting that this may be a tumor-specific phenomenon. As both 2-O- and 6-O-sulfations occur predominantly within extended N-sulfated regions of HS chains (54), it may be possible that WiDr HS also has increased levels of O-sulfation. This is supported by our findings that coated WiDr perlecan binds more FGF-2 and is more susceptible to heparinase I activity. However, it should be noted that structural variation in HS between cell types does not always correspond to differences in binding FGF-2, as was observed previously (55) for syndecan-1. Also, it should be noted that the suggested differences in sulfate content in WiDr HS need to be confirmed by the use of an alternative approach to disaccharide analysis, which might include chemical N-deacetylation followed by both low and high pH nitrous acid treatment.
FGF-2 Mitogenesis-- FGFR1/3 "b" and "c" are two of three splice variants that differ in the amino acid sequence in the third IgG domain conferring on them different ligand-binding properties (56). In FGFR-expressing BaF3 cells, responses to FGF are dependent on the addition of exogenous activating compounds such as heparin. Perlecan immunopurified from fibroblasts has been shown previously to stimulate cell signaling of FGFR1c cells in the presence of FGF-2 (16). In our study, we also show that perlecan from two endothelial cells stimulated FGF-2 signaling of the FGFR1c in BaF3 cell lines, whereas only the HUAEC-derived perlecan stimulated the growth of FGFR3c-expressing BaF3 cells. When activity was detected in the BaF3 cell assays, it was found to be present in heparinase III-resistant segments of the HS chains, which is consistent with previous studies (30) on HS chain structure. In contrast, we found that treatment with heparinase I, which cleaves the HS chain at putative FGF-2-binding sites, does not always result in reduced bioactivity of the digested HS chain. HUAEC lost activity after heparinase I digestion, but there was no reduction in the bioactivity of HS chains from C11 STH perlecan following heparinase I digestion, suggesting that there may be other FGF-2 signaling sequences within these HS chains.
WiDr-derived perlecan did not stimulate growth of any of the BaF3 cell lines, even though it was very efficient at binding FGF-2. However, once the HS was released from the protein core it became active, suggesting that the presence of the protein core was inhibitory. Local formation of polysaccharide secondary structure has been proposed to govern the binding and catalytic interactions between proteins and glycosaminoglycans (57), but surprisingly, there has been little evaluation on the effect that protein core-HS interactions might have on HS ligands. The WiDr results are similar to those reported previously for syndecan-1 where the proteolytically released ectodomains potently inhibited FGF-2-mediated mitogenesis until heparinase III or heparinases from platelets cleaved the HS chains to release fragments capable of potentiating the action of FGF-2 (58, 59). Another interpretation of the data could be that the HS chains attached to the protein core interacted with each other in a fashion that inhibited their bioactivity. HS chains have long been known to possess the ability to interact with each other (60, 61). These HS-HS or protein-HS interactions within HSPGs may therefore provide a physiological mechanism whereby the activities of FGFs in wound healing and tumorigenesis are modulated.
In summary, this work has demonstrated that perlecans isolated from
different cell types differ significantly in their ability to interact
with FGF-2 and FGF receptors, which in turn allows differential
regulation of FGF-2-mediated cell signaling. HS structural analysis
suggests that these activities are mediated by differences in the HS
sequences of the various perlecans. It is also interesting to find that
HS-HS and HS-protein interactions may influence HSPG growth factor
activities and that FGF-2 mitogenic sequences other than those already
identified may exist in native HS. If we are to understand how perlecan
and other types of HSPGs affect the signaling of the different growth
factor receptors, it is essential to identify the exact HS sequences
that are responsible for the differential binding.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
We thank Penny Bean (CSIRO) for technical advice and assistance, Debbie Lock for laboratory maintenance, and Drs. M. Evans and P. A. Underwood (CSIRO) for critical appraisal of the manuscript. We are grateful to Dr. D. Ornitz of Washington University, St. Louis, for providing the BaF3 cell lines and Dr. R. Iozzo of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, for providing the WiDr cell line.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* 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: CSIRO Molecular Science, P. O. Box 184, North Ryde, New South Wales 1670, Australia. Tel.: 61-2-94905055; Fax: 61-2-94905005; E-mail: john.whitelock@csiro.au.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, February 14, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M111826200
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviations used are: HSPG, heparan sulfate proteoglycan; FGF, fibroblast growth factor; HS, heparan sulfate; PG proteoglycans, FGFR, fibroblast growth factor receptor; S, sulfate; FCS, fetal calf serum; HUAEC, human umbilical arterial endothelial cells; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; RT, room temperature; CHAPS, 3-[(3-cholamidopropyl)dimethylammonio]-1-propanesulfonic acid.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. |
Brown, J. C.,
Sasaki, T.,
Gohring, W.,
Yamada, Y.,
and Timpl, R.
(1997)
Eur. J. Biochem.
250,
39-46[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 2. |
Whitelock, J. M.,
Graham, L. D.,
Melrose, J.,
Murdoch, A. D.,
Iozzo, R. V.,
and Underwood, P. A.
(1999)
Matrix Biol.
18,
163-178[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 3. |
Hopf, M.,
Gohring, W.,
Kohfeldt, E.,
Yamada, Y.,
and Timpl, R.
(1999)
Eur. J. Biochem.
259,
917-925[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 4. |
Hayashi, K.,
Madri, J. A.,
and Yurchenco, P. D.
(1992)
J. Cell Biol.
119,
945-959 |
| 5. |
Sharma, B.,
Handler, M.,
Eichstetter, I.,
Whitelock, J. M.,
Nugent, M. A.,
and Iozzo, R. V.
(1998)
J. Clin. Invest.
102,
1599-1608[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 6. |
Whitelock, J. M.,
Murdoch, A. D.,
Iozzo, R. V.,
and Underwood, P. A.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
10079-10086 |
| 7. |
Whitelock, J.,
Mitchell, S.,
Graham, L.,
and Underwood, P. A.
(1997)
Cell Biol. Int.
21,
181-189[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 8. |
Mongiat, M.,
Taylor, K.,
Otto, J.,
Aho, S.,
Uitto, J.,
Whitelock, J. M.,
and Iozzo, R. V.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
7095-7100 |
| 9. |
Iozzo, R. V.
(1994)
Matrix Biol.
14,
203-208[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 10. |
Nugent, M. A.,
and Iozzo, R. V.
(2000)
Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol.
32,
115-120[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 11. |
Ebara, T.,
Conde, K.,
Kako, Y.,
Liu, Y., Xu, Y.,
Ramakrishnan, R.,
Goldberg, I. J.,
and Shachter, N. S.
(2000)
J. Clin. Invest.
105,
1807-1818[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 12. |
Fuki, I. V.,
Kuhn, K. M.,
Lomazov, I. R.,
Rothman, V. L.,
Tuszynski, G. P.,
Iozzo, R. V.,
Swenson, T. L.,
Fisher, E. A.,
and Williams, K. J.
(1997)
J. Clin. Invest.
100,
1611-1622[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 13. |
French, M. M.,
Smith, S. E.,
Akanbi, K.,
Sanford, T.,
Hecht, J.,
FarachCarson, M. C.,
and Carson, D. D.
(1999)
J. Cell Biol.
145,
1103-1115 |
| 14. |
Tessler, S.,
Rockwell, P.,
Hicklin, D.,
Cohen, T.,
Levi, B. Z.,
Witte, L.,
Lemischka, I. R.,
and Neufeld, G.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
12456-12461 |
| 15. |
Adatia, R.,
Albini, A.,
Carlone, S.,
Giunciuglio, D.,
Benelli, R.,
Santi, L.,
and Noonan, D. M.
(1997)
Ann. Oncol.
8,
1257-1261 |
| 16. |
Aviezer, D.,
Hecht, D.,
Safran, M.,
Eisinger, M.,
David, G.,
and Yayon, A.
(1994)
Cell
79,
1005-1013[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 17. |
Arikawa-Hirasawa, E.,
Watanabe, H.,
Takami, H.,
Hassell, J. R.,
and Yamada, Y.
(1999)
Nat. Genet.
23,
354-358[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 18. |
Costell, M.,
Gustafsson, E.,
Aszodi, A.,
Morgelin, M.,
Bloch, W.,
Hunziker, E.,
Addicks, K.,
Timpl, R.,
and Fassler, R.
(1999)
J. Cell Biol.
147,
1109-1122 |
| 19. |
Yayon, A.,
Klagsbrun, M.,
Esko, J. D.,
Leder, P.,
and Ornitz, D. M.
(1991)
Cell
64,
841-848[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 20. |
Ornitz, D. M.,
Yayon, A.,
Flanagan, J. G.,
Svahn, C. M.,
Levi, E.,
and Leder, P.
(1992)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
12,
240-247 |
| 21. |
Gengrinovitch, S.,
Berman, B.,
David, G.,
Witte, L.,
Neufeld, G.,
and Ron, D.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
10816-10822 |
| 22. |
Guimond, S.,
Maccarana, M.,
Olwin, B. B.,
Lindahl, U.,
and Rapraeger, A. C.
(1993)
J. Biol. Chem.
268,
23906-23914 |
| 23. |
Pye, D. A.,
and Kumar, S.
(1998)
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
248,
889-895[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 24. |
Kan, M.,
Wang, F., Xu, J.,
Crabb, J. W.,
Hou, J.,
and McKeehan, W. L.
(1993)
Science
259,
1918-1921 |
| 25. |
Roghani, M.,
Mansukhani, A.,
Dell'Era, P.,
Bellosta, P.,
Basilico, C.,
Rifkin, D. B.,
and Moscatelli, D.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
3976-3984 |
| 26. |
Nugent, M. A.,
and Edelman, E. R.
(1992)
Biochemistry
31,
8876-8883[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 27. |
Safran, M.,
Eisenstein, M.,
Aviezer, D.,
and Yayon, A.
(2000)
Biochem. J.
345,
107-113[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 28. |
Jayson, G. C.,
Lyon, M.,
Paraskeva, C.,
Turnbull, J. E.,
Deakin, J. A.,
and Gallagher, J. T.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
51-57 |
| 29. |
Fernig, D. G.,
Chen, H. L.,
Rahmoune, H.,
Descamps, S.,
Boilly, B.,
and Hondermarck, H.
(2000)
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
267,
770-776[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 30. |
Guimond, S. E.,
and Turnbull, J. E.
(1999)
Curr. Biol.
9,
1343-1346[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 31. |
Cockerill, G. W.,
Meyer, G.,
Noack, L.,
Vadas, M. A.,
and Gamble, J. R.
(1994)
Lab. Invest.
71,
497-509[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 32. |
Cole, S. R.,
Ashman, L. K.,
and Ey, P. L.
(1987)
Mol. Immunol.
24,
699-705[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 33. |
Jonsson, U.,
Fagerstam, L.,
Ivarsson, B.,
Johnsson, B.,
Karlsson, R.,
Lundh, K.,
Lofas, S.,
Persson, B.,
Roos, H.,
and Ronnberg, I.
(1991)
BioTechniques
11,
620-627[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 34. |
Shively, J. E.,
and Conrad, H. E.
(1976)
Biochemistry
15,
3932-3942[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 35. |
Melrose, J.,
and Ghosh, P.
(1993)
J. Chromatogr.
637,
91-95 |
| 36. |
Turnbull, J. E.,
Fernig, D. G., Ke, Y.,
Wilkinson, M. C.,
and Gallagher, J. T.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
10337-10341 |
| 37. |
Linhardt, R. J.,
Turnbull, J. E.,
Wang, H. M.,
Loganathan, D.,
and Gallagher, J. T.
(1990)
Biochemistry
29,
2611-2617[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 38. |
Desai, U. R.,
Wang, H. M.,
and Linhardt, R. J.
(1993)
Biochemistry
32,
8140-8145[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 39. |
Yamada, S.,
Murakami, T.,
Tsuda, H.,
Yoshida, K.,
and Sugahara, K.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
8696-8705[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 40. |
Cotman, S. L.,
Halfter, W.,
and Cole, G. J.
(1999)
Exp. Cell Res.
249,
54-64[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 41. |
Kojima, T.,
Katsumi, A.,
Yamazaki, T.,
Muramatsu, T.,
Nagasaka, T.,
Ohsumi, K.,
and Saito, H.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
5914-5920 |
| 42. |
Friedl, A.,
Chang, Z.,
Tierney, A.,
and Rapraeger, A. C.
(1997)
Am. J. Pathol.
150,
1443-1455[Abstract] |
| 43. |
Barillari, G.,
Albonici, L.,
Franzese, O.,
Modesti, A.,
Liberati, F.,
Barillari, P.,
Ensoli, B.,
Manzari, V.,
and Santeusanio, G.
(1998)
Am. J. Pathol.
152,
1161-1166[Abstract] |
| 44. | LaRochelle, W. J., Sakaguchi, K., Atabey, N., Cheon, H. G., Takagi, Y., Kinaia, T., Day, R. M., Miki, T., Burgess, W. H., and Bottaro, D. P. (1999) Biochemistry 38, 1765-1771 |