![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 20, 18111-18117, May 17, 2002
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the Division of Experimental Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess
Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
02115
Received for publication, January 23, 2002, and in revised form, February 22, 2002
Chemokines and their receptors play a critical
role in host immune surveillance and are important mediators of human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pathogenesis and inflammatory response.
The chemokine receptors CCR5 and CXCR4, which act as co-receptors along
with CD4 for HIV docking and entry, are down-modulated by their
respective ligands, MIP-1 Chemokines and their receptors play an important role in immune
and inflammatory responses by regulating the directional migration and
activation of leukocytes (1-3). These molecules have also been
implicated in hematopoiesis, angiogenesis, embryonic development, and
breast cancer metastasis (4-8). In addition, chemokine receptors such
as CXCR4 and CCR5 have been shown to act as co-receptors for the entry
and infection of HIV-1 and HIV-2 (9-12).
CC chemokines MIP-1 Although the trafficking properties of chemokine receptors are
important in HIV infection and immune regulation, the downstream events
occurring after internalization of these receptors are not well
defined. Receptor phosphorylation-dependent and
-independent mechanisms have been shown to regulate CXCR4 receptor
internalization (22-25). The cytoplasmic tail of CCR5 has been shown
to play a major role in receptor internalization and signaling.
Recently, a degradation motif was identified in the C-terminal domain
of CXCR4 (26). Moreover, the agonist-mediated ubiquitination of the
CXCR4 receptor was observed to be blocked when the lysine residues in
this degradation motif were mutated. In the present studies, we further
delineate the signaling pathway that regulates CXCR4 and CCR5
down-modulation induced by cognate ligands and the HIV envelope protein
gp120. We have observed that the proteasome pathway plays a major role
in the down-modulation of these receptors.
Proteasomes have been shown to play an important role in regulating the
levels of several cell surface receptors including the
interleukin-2 receptor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor (27-29). Proteasomes are also essential for the production of
peptides for MHC (major histocompatibility complex) class I antigen
presentation (30). In addition, proteasomes have also been implicated
as controlling the level of certain transcriptional factors and cell
cycle regulatory proteins (31, 32). It has been shown that proteasome
inhibitors blocked interference with HIV gag polypeptide processing and
decreased the infectivity and release of secreted virions (33). HIV-1
encoded Env and Vpu protein-mediated degradation of the CD4 receptor
are also dependent on proteasomes (34, 35).
Because proteasomes play a major role in viral processing, we thought
it interesting to determine whether the proteasome pathway also
regulates HIV co-receptor expression. Moreover, it was of interest to
find out whether the proteasome pathway also regulates chemotaxis
mediated by these receptors. Our present work suggests that chemokine
CXCR4 and CCR5 receptor down-modulations are indeed regulated by the
proteasomal pathway. Furthermore, our studies have also shown that the
proteasome pathway also regulates CXCR4 and CCR5-mediated chemotaxis
but has no effect on MAP kinases induced by these receptors.
Plasmid Construction--
The C-terminal cytosolic tail of the
CCR5 receptor was amplified using primers with flanking
EcoRI and XhoI sites from the CCR5 constructs
(36). The sense primer was 5'-CCCGAATTCCCCATCATCTATGCCTTTG-3' and the
antisense primer was 5'-TCTGTACTCGAGCCGCGGTCACAAGCCCACAGATATTTC-3'. For
the yeast two-hybrid screening, the PCR fragment was ligated to the
EcoRI and XhoI sites of pLEXA-BD
(CLONTECH), a 2-µ His-3 plasmid, to
generate a CCR5-LexA fusion. The sequence of the construct was
confirmed by dideoxy sequencing. For the mammalian two-hybrid interaction assay, the PCR fragment was ligated to the EcoRI
and SalI sites of pM (CLONTECH) to
generate a fusion protein of the CCR5 cytosolic tail and DNA-binding
domain of GAL4. The positive clones obtained from the yeast two-hybrid
screening were excised from pB42AD (CLONTECH) using
the EcoRI and XhoI sites and ligated to the
EcoRI/SalI sites on pVP16
(CLONTECH), generating a fusion protein with a VP16
activating domain.
Yeast Two-hybrid Interaction Assay--
The yeast two-hybrid
assay was performed according to the instruction manual
(CLONTECH). Briefly, EGY48-p8op yeast cells with the lacZ gene were transformed with the pLexA-CCR5
cytosolic tail and the Jurkat cell cDNA library in pB42AD using the
lithium acetate method. The transformants were selected on
galactose/raffinose Ura Mammalian Two-hybrid Interaction Assay--
For interaction
studies in mammalian cells, the CLONTECH
MatchmakerTM mammalian two-hybrid assay system and 293T
cells were used. The pM-CCR5 cytosolic tail fused to the GAL4 DNA
binding domain and the pVP16 plasmid containing the positive clones
from the yeast two-hybrid system fused to the VP16 transactivation
domain were constructed. The reporter gene assay was performed using
the pG5CAT plasmid (CLONTECH). 293T cells
were transfected with the pM and pVP16 constructs along with the
reporter constructs pG5CAT and pCMV- Stimulation of Cells--
Stimulation of cells was carried out
as described earlier (36-39). Briefly, CCR5 L1.2 or Jurkat cells were
washed twice with Hanks' buffered salt solution (Cellgro) and then
resuspended in the Hanks' buffered salt solution with a density of
107 cells/ml. The cells were subsequently serum-starved for
1 h at 37 °C. Serum-starved cells were stimulated with 100 ng/ml MIP-1 Immunoprecipitation and Western Blot Analysis--
Equal amounts
of protein from the stimulated time points were clarified by incubation
with protein A-Sepharose CL-4B or GammaBindTM Sepharose
beads (both from Amersham Biosciences) for 1 h at 4 °C. The
Sepharose beads were removed by brief centrifugation, and the
supernatants were incubated with different primary antibodies for
2 h at 4 °C. Immunoprecipitation of the antibody-antigen
complexes was performed by incubation at 4 °C overnight with 50 µl
of protein A-Sepharose or GammaBindTM Sepharose (50%
suspension). Nonspecific interacting proteins were removed by washing
the beads thrice with modified radioimmune precipitation assay buffer
and once with phosphate-buffered saline. Immune complexes were
solubilized in 50 µl of 2× Laemmli buffer, boiled, and subjected to
SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. The proteins were transferred
onto nitrocellulose membranes. The membranes were then blocked in 5%
nonfat milk protein for 2 h at 37 °C or overnight at 4 °C
and probed with primary antibody for 3 h at room temperature or at
4 °C overnight. Immunoreactive bands were visualized using
horseradish peroxidase-conjugated secondary antibody and the enhanced
chemiluminescence system (ECL, Amersham Biosciences).
Flow Cytometry--
Jurkat or CCR5 L1.2 cells were preincubated
with or without the proteasome inhibitors lactacystin (25 µM) and epoxomicin (25 µM) in RPMI 1640 containing 10% fetal bovine serum for 1 h at 37 °C. The cells
were then stimulated with 1.2 µg/ml gp120 or 1 µg/ml MIP-1 Confocal Microscopy--
Jurkat or CCR5 L1.2 cells were
cytofuged on slides. The cells were preincubated with or without
the proteasome inhibitors lactacystin (25 µM) or
epoxomicin (25 µM) in RPMI 1640 containing 10% fetal
bovine serum for 1 h at 37 °C. The cells were then stimulated with 1.2 µg/ml gp120 or 1 µg/ml MIP-1 Isolation of Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes--
Lymphocytes from
peripheral blood (PBLs) were isolated as described previously (37).
Briefly, PBLs were isolated from heparinized venous blood collected
from healthy donors by Ficoll-Hypaque density gradient centrifugation
at 3000 rpm for 25 min. The cells were suspended in RPMI containing
10% fetal calf serum, 2 mM glutamine, 50 µg/ml
penicillin, and 50 µg/ml streptomycin. Monocytes were depleted by two
rounds of adherence to plastic. Nonadherent cells were stimulated with
phytohemagglutinin (5 µg/ml) for 3 days. Cells were removed to fresh
medium supplemented with recombinant human interleukin-2
(Advanced Biotechnologies, Columbia, MD). Two-week-old cells were
used for the chemotaxis assays. To determine whether any of the added
agents were toxic, the viability of the cells following various
treatments was monitored by trypan blue uptake. No significant toxicity
was observed.
Migration Assays--
Migration assays were performed
according to the procedures described previously (37). Briefly, CCR5
L1.2 cells/Jurkat cells/PBLs were washed twice and suspended at
10 × 106 cells/ml in medium containing RPMI 1640 with
2.5% fetal calf serum. A 24-well plate containing 5 µm porosity
inserts (CoStar Corp., Kennebunk, ME) was used for this
experiment. Before performing the migration assay, cells were treated
with different concentrations of the proteasome inhibitors epoxomicin
and lactacystin or the appropriate control solvent
(Me2SO) for 60 min. 100 µl (1 × 106 cells) from each sample was loaded onto the upper well.
0.6 ml of medium containing SDF-1 p38 MAP Kinase Assay--
CCR5 L1.2 cells were stimulated with
200 ng/ml MIP-1 Statistical Analysis--
The results are expressed as the
mean ± S.D. of data obtained from three or four experiments
performed in duplicate or triplicate. The statistical significance was
determined using the Student's t test.
The Cytosolic Tail of CCR5 Associates with the Proteasome
The interaction was further confirmed in 293T cells using the mammalian
two-hybrid system. The CCR5 receptor protein was expressed as a fusion
to the Gal4 DNA-binding domain, and the proteasome
To further characterize the interaction between CCR5 and the proteasome
Ligand-induced CCR5 Receptor Internalization Is Regulated by
Proteasomes--
Because the cytoplasmic tail of the CCR5 receptor was
shown to interact with the
These observations were further confirmed by confocal microscopy. Cells
stimulated with MIP-1 SDF-1
These results were further confirmed by confocal microscopy.
Pretreatment of cells with proteasome inhibitors followed by stimulation with SDF-1 The Proteasome Inhibitor Lactacystin Does Not Significantly Block
CD4 Internalization--
Earlier studies have shown that gp120
treatment also induces down-modulation of the CD4 receptor (40). We
also studied the involvement of the proteasome pathway in CD4 receptor
down-modulation. As shown in Fig.
5A, pretreatment of cells with
the proteasome inhibitor Lactacystin did not significantly block
gp120-induced CD4 receptor down-modulation. We have further shown that
gp120-induced CXCR4 receptor internalization was dependent on the
presence of CD4 because gp120-treated cells lacking the CD4
receptor did not show any down-modulation of the receptor. However,
internalization of the CXCR4 receptor in CD4-negative cells was
observed upon stimulation with SDF-1 The Proteasome Pathway May Also Modulate CXCR4 and CCR5
Receptor-mediated Chemotaxis--
We also studied the effect of
proteasome inhibitors on CCR5 and CXCR4-mediated chemotactic function.
Pretreatment of CCR5 L1.2 cells with proteasome inhibitors attenuated
MIP-1 Proteasome Inhibitors Have No Significant Effect on CXCR4 and
CCR5-mediated MAP Kinase Pathways--
Because proteasome inhibitors
blocked CXCR4 and CCR5-mediated chemotactic functions, we studied the
effect of these compounds on MAP kinases activated by these receptors.
In our previous studies, we have shown that CCR5 activation mediates
p38 kinase, whereas CXCR4 activation mediates p42/44 MAP kinase
activities (37, 40, 41). As shown in Fig.
8, A (upper panel)
and B, epoxomicin pretreatment (50 µM) had no
significant effect on SDF-1 CCR5 and CXCR4 receptor interaction with the HIV-1 surface
envelope glycoprotein gp120 triggers molecular events that eventually result in HIV infection. It has been shown that gp120 can induce rapid
internalization of these receptors (40, 42). Furthermore, the cognate
ligands of CCR5 (MIP-1 Recent studies have shown that the cytoplasmic tail of the CCR5
receptor is involved in receptor trafficking (43). Shoida et
al. (43) showed that a natural variant of CCR5 that lacked the
C-terminal was impaired for surface expression. Similarly, complete
removal of the cytoplasmic tail of CCR5 almost completely abolished
trafficking to the cell surface. The naturally occurring CCR5 mutant,
CCR5 Because 26 S proteasome is involved in the turnover of various cellular
proteins (47, 48), we anticipated that the proteasome pathway might
regulate CCR5 receptor trafficking. In the present studies, we used the
specific proteasome inhibitors lactacystin and epoxomicin to explore
the potential role of proteasomes in the endocytosis of the CCR5
receptor. Pretreatment of cells with these inhibitors completely
prevented endocytosis of the CCR5 receptor. Further studies indicated
that the proteasome pathway also regulates endocytosis of another
co-receptor of HIV-1, CXCR4. Both ligand- and HIV gp120-induced
down-modulation of the CXCR4 receptor was completely dependent on the
proteasome pathway. However, gp120-induced endocytosis of the HIV
receptor, CD4, was not significantly inhibited by the proteasome
inhibitor pretreatments. Interestingly, the gp120-mediated
down-modulation of the CXCR4 receptor was observed to be dependent on
the CD4 receptor. Absence of the CD4 receptor prevented down-modulation
of the CXCR4 receptor upon gp120 stimulation but not upon SDF-1 We also investigated the effect of proteasome inhibitors on the
downstream functional effects mediated by the CCR5 and CXCR4 receptors.
We observed a reduction of about 80% in CCR5 and about 40-50% in
CXCR4-mediated chemotaxis upon pretreatment of cells with the
proteasome inhibitors. However, these compounds had no effect on
CCR5-mediated p38 kinase and CXCR4-mediated MAP kinase activities.
Proteasomes have been shown to regulate the activity of transcription
factor NF- These studies provide new information about the role of the proteasome
pathway in regulating CCR5 and CXCR4 down-modulation induced by cognate
ligands and HIV gp120. Proteasomes may also partially regulate CCR5-
and CXCR4-mediated chemotaxis. Both of these events are important in
HIV infection and in other physiological and pathological processes.
We appreciate the helpful discussions with
Dr. Jerome Groopman. We thank Dohun Pyeon and In-Woo Park for
technical advice and Janet Delahanty for editing the manuscript. We
also thank Rick Rogers and Jean Wang for assistance with confocal microscopy.
*
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health
Grants AI49140 and CA76950 and a grant from the American Foundation for
AIDS Research (to R. K. G.).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.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, March 4, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M200750200
The abbreviations used are:
RANTES, regulated on
activation normal T cell expressed and secreted;
HIV, human
immunodeficiency virus;
MAP, mitogen-activated protein;
CAT, chloramphenicol acetyltransferase;
SDF, stromal-derived factor;
PBL, peripheral blood lymphocytes.
CXCR4/CCR5 Down-modulation and Chemotaxis Are Regulated by the
Proteasome Pathway*
![]()
ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
/SDF-1
or by the HIV envelope protein,
gp120. We have studied the role of the proteasome pathway in the
down-regulation of these receptors. Using the yeast and mammalian
two-hybrid systems, we observed that the CCR5 receptor is
constitutively associated with the
subunit of proteasome.
Immunoprecipitation studies in CCR5 L1.2 cells revealed that this
association was increased with MIP-1
stimulation. The proteasome
inhibitors, lactacystin and epoxomicin, attenuated MIP-1
induced
CCR5 down-modulation as detected by fluorescence-activated cell sorter
analysis and confocal microscopy. The proteasome inhibitors also
inhibited the SDF-1
and gp120 protein-induced down-modulation of the
CXCR4 receptor in Jurkat cells. However, the inhibitors had no
significant effect on the gp120-induced internalization of the CD4
receptor. These inhibitors also blocked cognate ligand-mediated
chemotaxis but had no effect on SDF-1
-induced p44/42 MAP kinase or
MIP-1
-induced p38 kinase activities, thus indicating differential
effects of the inhibitors on signaling mediated by these receptors.
These results indicate that the CCR5 and CXCR4 receptor down-modulation mechanism and chemotaxis mediated by these receptors are dependent upon
proteasome activity.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
(CCL3), MIP-1
(CCL4), and
RANTES1(CCL5), the cognate
ligands for CCR5, have been shown to inhibit HIV infection in
vitro (13-16). Subsequently, stromal-derived factor-1
(SDF-1
/CXCL12), the cognate ligand for the CXCR4 receptor, was also
shown to inhibit infection by T-tropic viruses (17-19). It has been
demonstrated that the ligand-induced endocytosis of CCR5 and CXCR4
plays an important role in inhibiting HIV entry into the cells (20,
21). Furthermore, effective anti-HIV activity of the chemically
modified form of the CC chemokines correlates with the ability of these
ligands to induce irreversible and efficient down-regulation of CCR5
(20). Recently, Brandt et al. (50) have shown that
the ability of chemokines to block the infection of HIV depends upon
the efficiency of the ligand to internalize the CCR5 receptor.
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
His
Trp
Leu
plates. The positive clones were plated on galactose/raffinose Ura
His
Trp
Leu
5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl
-D-galactosidase (X-gal).
Blue colonies were used as putative positive interacting clones. The
plasmids from the positive clones were rescued in Escherichia
coli KC8, and the clones were identified by sequencing and
homology searches using BLAST.
-Gal. For measurement of CAT
activity, the proteins were normalized against the specific activity of
-galactosidase. CAT activity was determined by measuring the
incorporation of [14C]chloramphenicol (PerkinElmer Life
Sciences) into butyryl-CoA (CLONTECH) and
analyzed by thin layer chromatography.
(PeproTech, Inc.) or 1.2 µg/ml gp120 (Protein Sciences
Corp.) at 37 °C for various time periods. At the end of the
stimulation, cells were harvested by centrifugation and lysed in
modified radioimmune precipitation assay buffer (50 mM
Tris-HCl, pH 7.4, 1% Nonidet P-40, 150 mM NaCl, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 10 µg/ml aprotinin, 10 µg/ml leupeptin, 10 µg/ml antipain, 10 µg/ml chymostatin, 100 µg/ml trypsin inhibitor, 10 µg/ml pepstatin, 10 mM sodium vanadate, 10 mM sodium fluoride, and
10 mM sodium pyrophosphate). The cell lysates were
clarified by centrifugation at 10,000 × g for 10 min.
Protein concentrations were determined by the Bio-Rad detergent-compatible protein assay.
for
30 min and washed with ice-cold phosphate-buffered saline followed by
fixing in 2% formaldehyde for 15 min at room temperature. The CXCR4
receptor on the Jurkat cells or the CCR5 receptor on the CCR5 L1.2
cells was stained with phycoerythrin-coupled anti-CXCR4 or anti-CCR5
antibody, respectively, for 1 h at 4 °C. The cells were next
washed with phosphate-buffered saline, suspended in 1% formaldehyde in
phosphate-buffered saline, and subjected to flow cytometric analysis.
for 30 min. The
stimulation was arrested by washing the cells with ice-cold
phosphate-buffered saline followed by fixing in 4% paraformaldehyde
for 10 min at room temperature. The cells were next permeabilized with
0.2% Triton X-100 followed by blocking with 5% bovine serum albumin for 30 min at 4 °C. The CXCR4 receptor on the Jurkat cells was stained with anti-CXCR4 antibody coupled to phycoerythrin (PharMingen) for 1 h. The CCR5 receptor on the CCR5 L1.2 cells was stained with
goat anti-CCR5 antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology) overnight at 4 °C
followed by Texas-red labeled anti-goat IgG (Vector). Slides were
examined using a Leica TCS confocal microscope.
(50 ng/ml) for the Jurkat
cells/PBLs or MIP-1
(100 ng/ml) for CCR5 L1.2 cells was used. The
plates were incubated for 3 h at 37 °C in 5%
CO2. After incubation, the porous inserts were removed
carefully, and the viable cells were counted on a microscope using a
hemocytometer. No toxic effects on the cells were observed. The results
are expressed as the percent of migrated cells as compared with the
control (untreated cells). Each experiment was performed three or four
times in triplicate.
as described above. After the protein concentration
was normalized, the cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with p38
antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology). The immune complexes were washed
twice with radioimmune precipitation assay buffer and twice with kinase
buffer (50 mM HEPES, pH 7.4, 10 mM
MgCl2, 20 µM ATP). Finally, the immune complexes were incubated in a total volume of 25 µl of kinase buffer
containing 7 µg of myelin basic protein (Upstate Biotechnology, Lake
Placid, NY) and 5 µCi of [
-32P]ATP for 20 min at
30 °C. The proteins were separated on 15% SDS-PAGE, and bands were
detected by autoradiography.
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
Subunit--
To understand the signaling events mediated by the CCR5
receptor, we performed yeast two-hybrid screens using the C-terminal cytosolic tail of the CCR5 receptor as bait. In recent years, the yeast
two-hybrid system has been used as a powerful genetic tool to rapidly
select previously uncharacterized proteins and to identify novel
components of signaling networks. We used the Lex-A-dependent yeast two-hybrid system to examine the
potential interaction between the cytoplasmic tail of the CCR5 receptor and other signaling molecules. Several positive clones that interacted with the CCR5 cytoplasmic tail were isolated and sequenced. Some of
these clones represented unknown proteins. One of the proteins interacting with the CCR5 cytoplasmic tail was shown to be
, an
-subtype of the 20 S catalytic particle of the 26 S proteasome. This
association appeared to be specific, as we did not observe association
of this gene with the cytoplasmic tail of the Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus-encoded G-protein-coupled receptor under
similar conditions.
subunit was
expressed as a fusion to the herpes simplex virus VP16 protein
activation domain. The vectors were cotransfected into the 293T
mammalian cell line along with a reporter plasmid harboring the
chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (CAT) gene. The reporter plasmid
contains a CAT gene under the control of five consensus Gal4 binding
sites. The transfection was carried out along with the
-galactosidase gene to analyze transfection efficiency. Interaction
between the two fusion proteins leads to increased expression of the
CAT reporter gene. CAT enzyme activity was assayed from the transfected
cell lysates and normalized against
-galactosidase specific
activity. The
subunit showed a marked increase in the level of CAT
activity as compared with the controls, indicating a possible
interaction with the CCR5 receptor (Fig.
1A).

View larger version (37K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Association of the proteasome
with the CCR5 receptor. A, 293T
cells were co-transfected with the indicated plasmids, the reporter
plasmid, and plasmid containing the
-galactosidase gene using a
standard LipofectAMINE protocol. The resulting cell extracts were then
assayed for CAT activity as described under "Experimental
Procedures." The protein was normalized against the
-galactosidase-specific activity. The pM53 and pVP16-T combination
was used as a positive control. B, CCR5 L1.2 cells were
stimulated with MIP-1
(100 ng/ml) for different time points and
lysed in radioimmune precipitation assay buffer as described under
"Experimental Procedures." The resulting lysates were
immunoprecipitated with anti-CCR5 antibodies. The
immunoprecipitates along with antibody control (C) and total
cell lysates (TCL) were resolved by SDS-PAGE, immunoblotted
with anti-proteasome
antibody, and visualized by enhanced
chemiluminescence. IB, immunoblot.
, co-immunoprecipitation assays were performed in L1.2 cells
transfected with the CCR5 receptor. The endogenous proteasome
was
observed to be associated with the CCR5 receptor in unstimulated cells
(Fig. 1B, lane 2). Furthermore, upon stimulation with MIP-1
, the cognate ligand of the CCR5 receptor, the interaction between the CCR5 receptor and proteasome
subunit increased (Fig. 1). These results confirm the two-hybrid assay results regarding interaction between the CCR5 receptor and the
subunit.
subunit of proteasome, we next explored the role of this proteasome in ligand-induced proteasome
down-modulation. Earlier studies have shown that proteasomes regulate
internalization of several cell surface receptors (27-29). As shown in
Fig. 2, A and B,
pretreatment of cells with the specific proteasome inhibitors lactacystin and epoxomicin completely inhibited MIP-1
induced internalization of the CCR5 receptor. Both of these inhibitors attenuated ligand-induced internalization of the CCR5 receptor in a
dose-dependent manner (Fig. 2, C and
D).

View larger version (35K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
CCR5 receptor internalization is regulated by
proteasomes. CCR5 L1.2 cells were preincubated with either
dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) as control or the proteasome
inhibitors lactacystin (25 µM; A) or
epoxomicin (25 µM; B) in RPMI 1640 containing
10% fetal bovine serum for 1 h at 37 °C followed by
stimulation with MIP-1
. The CCR5 receptor on the cells was stained
with anti-CCR5 antibody coupled to phycoerythrin and subjected to flow
cytometric analysis. Panels C and D represent the
dose-dependent effect of the proteasome inhibitors upon
internalization of the receptor. Data are representative of three
separate experiments. E, the CCR5 L1.2 cells stimulated with
MIP-1
in the presence of lactacystin (25 µM) or
epoxomicin (25 µM) were cytofuged on slides and processed
for the levels of the CCR5 receptor by confocal microscopy as described
under "Experimental Procedures." Lac, lactacystin;
Epox, epoxomicin.
in the presence or absence of the proteasome
inhibitors were analyzed for CCR5 receptor expression. As shown in Fig.
2E, in the unstimulated cells, most of the receptor was
observed to be localized on the cell surface. Upon stimulation with
MIP-1
, the surface expression of the CCR5 receptor was reduced. However, the internalization of the receptor was blocked by
pretreatment of cells with the proteasome inhibitors. These results
further confirm that proteasomes play an important role in CCR5
receptor expression and internalization.
and gp120-induced CXCR4 Internalization Is Also Dependent
on Proteasome Function--
We have also analyzed the effect of the
proteasome inhibitors on HIV gp120- and SDF-1
-induced
internalization of another co-receptor of HIV, CXCR4. Earlier studies
have shown that the CXCR4 receptor undergoes rapid internalization upon
stimulation with the viral envelope protein gp120 or its cognate
ligand, SDF-1
. As shown in Fig. 3,
pretreatment of cells with the specific proteasome inhibitors
lactacystin and epoxomicin blocked down-modulation of the CXCR4
expression induced by SDF-1
or HIV gp120. Dose-dependent inhibition of CXCR4 receptor down-modulation by HIV gp120 (Fig. 4, A and B) or
SDF-1
(Fig. 4, C and D) was observed. Maximum inhibition of down-modulation was observed when cells were pretreated with 25 µM lactacystin or epoxomicin. No effect on cell
viability was observed at these concentrations (data not shown).

View larger version (17K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
SDF-1
and
gp120-induced CXCR4 receptor internalization is regulated by
proteasomes. Jurkat cells were preincubated with or without the
proteasome inhibitors lactacystin (25 µM) or epoxomicin
(25 µM) in RPMI 1640 containing 10% fetal bovine serum
for 1 h at 37 °C. The cells were stimulated with 1 µg/ml
SDF-1
or 1.2 µg/ml gp120 for different time periods and
then subjected to flow cytometric analysis as described under
"Experimental Procedures." SDF-1
stimulation in the absence
(
) or presence of lactacystin (
) or epoxomicin (
) or cells
stimulated with gp120 in the absence (
) or presence (
) of
lactacystin or epoxomicin (×) were analyzed. For controls, the cells
were incubated with lactacystin (
) or epoxomicin (
) alone. Data
are representative of three separate experiments. Lac,
lactacystin; Epox, epoxomicin.

View larger version (46K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
Effect of proteasome inhibitors on gp120- and
SDF-mediated CXCR4 internalization. Jurkat cells were preincubated
with varying concentrations of proteasome inhibitors for 1 h at
37 °C. Following preincubation, the cells were stimulated with gp120
(A and B) or SDF-1
(C and
D). The cells were analyzed by flow cytometry using
anti-CXCR4 antibodies coupled to phycoerythrin as described under
"Experimental Procedures." Data are representative of three
separate experiments. E, Jurkat cells were also analyzed for
the levels of the CXCR4 receptor by confocal microscopy as described
under "Experimental Procedures." Lac, lactacystin;
Epox, epoxomicin.
or gp120 did not alter the cell surface expression of the CXCR4 receptor (Fig. 4E).
(Fig. 5B).

View larger version (18K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
Effect of proteasome inhibitor on
gp120-mediated CD4 internalization and the importance of CD4 for CXCR4
internalization. A, Jurkat cells preincubated with or
without lactacystin (Lac, 50 µM) were analyzed
for the expression of CD4 upon treatment with HIV gp120 by using flow
cytometry. B, graph represents the level of CXCR4 receptor
in a variant of Jurkat cells
(CD4
/CXCR4+) or Jurkat
cells (CD4+/CXCR4+)
unstimulated (UN) or stimulated with either SDF-1
(SDF) or gp120.
induced chemotaxis in a dose-dependent manner. As
shown in Fig. 6A, a nearly
80% decrease in chemotaxis was observed with the proteasome inhibitor
epoxomicin (50 µM), whereas only a 20% inhibition was shown with lactacystin (50 µM) (Fig. 6B).
Higher concentrations of lactacystin were required for inhibition of
chemotaxis. These inhibitors were also shown to block 40-50% of the
SDF-1
-induced chemotaxis of Jurkat cells and nearly 30% of that in
PBLs with epoxomicin treatment (Fig. 7).
We also determined the effect on the viability of the cells of
treatment with the proteasome inhibitors at concentrations that
inhibited chemotaxis. No effect on cell viability using the proteasome
inhibitors was observed (data not shown).

View larger version (21K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 6.
Proteasome inhibitors block the
MIP-1
-induced migration of CCR5 L1.2
cells. Cells pretreated with the proteasome inhibitors epoxomicin
(A) or lactacystin (B) for 60 min were subjected
to chemotactic assay in the presence of MIP-1
(100 ng/ml) as
described under "Experimental Procedures." *, p < 0.05, n = 3. DMSO, dimethyl sulfoxide.

View larger version (17K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 7.
Proteasome inhibitors abrogate the
SDF-1
-induced chemotaxis of Jurkat
cells/PBLs. Jurkat cells (A and B)
preincubated with different concentrations of epoxomicin (A)
or lactacystin (B) or PBLs preincubated with epoxomicin
(C) or the appropriate solvent as a control for 60 min were
subjected to chemotactic assay in the presence of SDF-1
(50 ng/ml)
as described under "Experimental Procedures." *, p < 0.05, n = 3. DMSO, dimethyl
sulfoxide.
-induced p42/44 phosphorylation in Jurkat
cells. Equivalent amounts of p42/44 proteins were present in each lane
(Fig. 8A, lower panel). Similarly, pretreatment of CCR5 L1.2
cells with epoxomicin (500 µM) had no effect on
MIP-1
-induced p38 kinase activity (Fig. 8, C and
D).

View larger version (29K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 8.
SDF-1
-induced p44/42
MAP kinase activity in Jurkat cells and p38 kinase activity in CCR5
L1.2 cells are not affected by treatment with the proteasome inhibitor
epoxomicin. Epoxomicin-treated Jurkat cells (A) or CCR5
L1.2 cells (C) were stimulated with SDF-1
or MIP-1
,
respectively, for the indicated time periods.
SDF-1
-stimulated Jurkat cell lysates were analyzed for the
phosphorylation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2
(Erk 1/2) by immunoblot analysis as described under
"Experimental Procedures." The CCR5 L1.2 cell lysates were assayed
for p38 MAP kinase activity using myelin basic protein (MBP)
as substrate. Immunoprecipitate with purified IgG was used as a control
(0). The OD values obtained after densitometric
scanning of the P-Erk-1/2 bands (B) and phosphorylated
myelin basic protein (D) are represented as bar
graphs. DMSO, dimethyl sulfoxide; WB,
Western blot.
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
or RANTES) and of CXCR4 (SDF-1
) can
efficiently block HIV-1 infection mediated by CCR5 or CXCR4 (13-16).
Moreover, these compounds have also been known to induce the
down-regulation of CCR5 and CXCR4 at the cell surface. Therefore, information about the mechanism of CCR5 and CXCR4 receptor
internalization by HIV gp120 or upon stimulation with chemokine ligands
is important for the development of anti-viral strategies. In this
study, we have shown that the proteasome pathway plays an important
role in ligand- and gp120-mediated CCR5 and CXCR4 receptor internalization.
32, which has a 32-bp deletion in the second extracellular loop,
reduced the cell surface expression of CCR5 in a gene
dose-dependent manner (44). The C-terminal tail of the CCR5 receptor harbors a highly basic domain and a cysteine cluster.
This motif was observed to be critical for the cell surface expression
of CCR5 (45). To further analyze the role of this domain for ligand-
and gp120-mediated signal transduction and receptor internalization, we
used the yeast two-hybrid approach to identify the proteins that
interact with the CCR5 cytoplasmic tail. We observed a physical
interaction between the CCR5 cytoplasmic tail and
, an
subtype
of the 20 S catalytic particle of the 26 S proteasome. We further
confirmed this association by using the mammalian two-hybrid system and
under in vitro conditions by co-immunoprecipitation. The
observed association was enhanced by MIP-1
stimulation. Recently,
the
subunit of proteasome was shown to associate with presenilin-1
(PSEN1) in the cells (46). Presenilin-1 has been shown to be degraded
via the proteasome pathway during the development of Alzheimer's disease.
stimulation. These studies suggest that gp120-induced down-modulation
of the CXCR4 and CD4 receptors may involve different mechanisms but
that CXCR4 down-modulation induced by gp120 requires CD4. The
proteasome pathway has previously been shown to play a major role in
the ligand-mediated endocytosis of a variety of receptors (27-29).
Recently, it was shown that the Ubiquitin/proteasome system also
regulates HIV gag polypeptide processing and HIV-1-encoded Vpu
protein-mediated degradation of the CD4 receptor (34, 35). It has also
been implicated as playing a role in CXCR4 lysosomal sorting and
degradation (26). Furthermore, the CCR5
32 mutation has been shown to
result in a product that never reaches the cell surface (44, 45). It
has been postulated that this could be the result of misfolding and
consequent proteolytic degradation, perhaps by the proteasome.
B by degrading phosphorylated I
B (31). I
B acts as an
inhibitor for the translocation of NF-
B to the nucleus. In our
previous studies, we have shown that nitric oxide plays an important
role in SDF-1
-induced and CXCR4-mediated chemotactic activity (36).
Furthermore, our studies have also shown that SDF-1
-induced MAP
kinase activation is not dependent on the nitric oxide and NF-
B
pathways. Proteasomes have also been shown to regulate chemotaxis
mediated by tumor necrosis factor
(TNF
) in oral squamous
carcinoma cells (49). Moreover, the degradation of I
B was also
suppressed by proteasomes in tumor necrosis factor
-induced cells.
![]()
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
![]()
FOOTNOTES
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Division of
Experimental Medicine, Harvard Institutes of Medicine-BIDMC, 4 Blackfan Cr., Rm. 343, Boston, MA 02115. Tel.: 617-667-0060; Fax: 617-975-5240; E-mail: rganju@caregroup.harvard.edu.
![]()
ABBREVIATIONS
![]()
REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
1.
Mackay, C. R.
(2001)
Nat. Immunol.
2,
95-101[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 2.
Christopherson, K., II,
and Hromas, R.
(2001)
Stem Cells
19,
388-396 3.
De Groot, C. J.,
and Woodroofe, M. N.
(2001)
Prog. Brain Res.
132,
533-544[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 4.
Broxmeyer, H. E.
(2001)
Int. J. Hematol.
74,
9-17[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 5.
Moser, B.,
and Loetscher, P.
(2001)
Nat. Immunol.
2,
123-128[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 6.
Horuk, R.
(2001)
Cytokine Growth Factor Rev.
12,
313-335[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 7.
Ansel, K. M.,
and Cyster, J. G.
(2001)
Curr. Opin. Immunol.
13,
172-179[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 8.
Muller, A.,
Homey, B.,
Soto, H., Ge, N.,
Catron, D.,
Buchanan, M. E.,
McClanahan, T.,
Murphy, E.,
Yuan, W.,
Wagner, S. N.,
Barrera, J. L.,
Mohar, A.,
Verastegui, E.,
and Zlotnik, A.
(2001)
Nature
410,
50-56[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 9.
Stantchev, T. S.,
and Broder, C. C.
(2001)
Cytokine Growth Factor Rev.
12,
219-243[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 10.
Murakami, T.,
and Yamamoto, N.
(2000)
Int. J. Hematol.
72,
412-417[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 11.
Kinter, A.,
Arthos, J.,
Cicala, C.,
and Fauci, A. S.
(2000)
Immunol. Rev.
177,
88-98[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 12.
Broder, C. C.,
and Collman, R. G.
(1997)
J. Leukocyte Biol.
62,
20-29[Abstract] 13.
Townson, J. R.,
Graham, G. J.,
Landau, N. R.,
Rasala, B.,
and Nibbs, R. J.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
39254-39261 14.
Jiang, Y.,
and Jolly, P. E.
(1999)
J. Hum. Virol.
2,
123-132[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 15.
Simmons, G.,
Clapham, P. R.,
Picard, L.,
Offord, R. E.,
Rosenkilde, M. M.,
Schwartz, T. W.,
Buser, R.,
Wells, T. N.,
and Proudfoot, A. E.
(1997)
Science
276,
276-279 16.
Simmons, G.,
Reeves, J. D.,
Hibbitts, S.,
Stine, J. T.,
Gray, P. W.,
Proudfoot, A. E.,
and Clapham, P. R.
(2000)
Immunol. Rev.
177,
112-126[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 17.
Valenzuela-Fernandez, A.,
Palanche, T.,
Amara, A.,
Magerus, A.,
Altmeyer, R.,
Delaunay, T.,
Virelizier, J. L.,
Baleux, F.,
Galzi, J. L.,
and Arenzana-Seisdedos, F.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
26550-26558 18.
He, J.,
Chen, Y.,
Farzan, M.,
Choe, H.,
Ohagen, A.,
Gartner, S.,
Busciglio, J.,
Yang, X.,
Hofmann, W.,
Newman, W.,
Mackay, C. R.,
Sodroski, J.,
and Gabuzda, D.
(1997)
Nature
385,
645-649[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 19.
Oberlin, E.,
Amara, A.,
Bachelerie, F.,
Bessia, C.,
Virelizier, J. L.,
Arenzana-Seisdedos, F.,
Schwartz, O.,
Heard, J. M.,
Clark-Lewis, I.,
Legler, D. F.,
Loetscher, M.,
Baggiolini, M.,
and Moser, B.
(1996)
Nature
382,
833-835[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 20.
Mack, M.,
Luckow, B.,
Nelson, P. J.,
Cihak, J.,
Simmons, G.,
Clapham, P. R.,
Signoret, N.,
Marsh, M.,
Stangassinger, M.,
Borlat, F.,
Wells, T. N.,
Schlondorff, D.,
and Proudfoot, A. E.
(1998)
J. Exp. Med.
187,
1215-1224 21.
Signoret, N.,
Oldridge, J.,
Pelchen-Matthews, A.,
Klasse, P. J.,
Tran, T.,
Brass, L. F.,
Rosenkilde, M. M.,
Schwartz, T. W.,
Holmes, W.,
Dallas, W.,
Luther, M. A.,
Wells, T. N.,
Hoxie, J. A.,
and Marsh, M.
(1997)
J. Cell Biol.
139,
651-664 22.
Su, S. B.,
Gong, W.,
Grimm, M.,
Utsunomiya, I.,
Sargeant, R.,
Oppenheim, J. J.,
and Wang, J. M.
(1999)
J. Immunol.
162,
7128-7132 23.
Wang, J.,
Guan, E.,
Roderiquez, G.,
Calvert, V.,
Alvarez, R.,
and Norcross, M. A.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
49236-49243 24.
Haribabu, B.,
Richardson, R. M.,
Fisher, I.,
Sozzani, S.,
Peiper, S. C.,
Horuk, R.,
Ali, H.,
and Snyderman, R.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
28726-28731 25.
Van Drenth, C.,
Jenkins, A.,
Ledwich, L.,
Ryan, T. C.,
Mashikian, M. V.,
Brazer, W.,
Center, D. M.,
and Cruikshank, W. W.
(2000)
J. Immunol.
165,
6356-6363 26.
Marchese, A.,
and Benovic, J. L.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
45509-45512 27.
Yu, A.,
and Malek, T. R.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
381-385 28.
van Kerkhof, P.,
Govers, R.,
Alves dos Santos, C. M.,
and Strous, G. J.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
1575-1580 29.
Baron, V.,
and Schwartz, M.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
39318-39323 30.
Androlewicz, M. J.
(2001)
Curr. Opin. Hematol.
8,
12-16[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 31.
Palombella, V. J.,
Rando, O. J.,
Goldberg, A. L.,
and Maniatis, T.
(1994)
Cell
78,
773-785[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 32.
Kim, T. K.,
and Maniatis, T.
(1996)
Science
273,
1717-1719 33.
Schubert, U.,
Ott, D. E.,
Chertova, E. N.,
Welker, R.,
Tessmer, U.,
Princiotta, M. F.,
Bennink, J. R.,
Krausslich, H. G.,
and Yewdell, J. W.
(2000)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
97,
13057-13062 34.
Fujita, K.,
Omura, S.,
and Silver, J.
(1997)
J. Gen. Virol.
78,
619-625[Abstract] 35.
Schubert, U.,
Anton, L. C.,
Bacik, I.,
Cox, J. H.,
Bour, S.,
Bennink, J. R.,
Orlowski, M.,
Strebel, K.,
and Yewdell, J. W.
(1998)
J. Virol.
72,
2280-2288 36.
Ganju, R. K.,
Dutt, P., Wu, L.,
Newman, W.,
Avraham, H.,
Avraham, S.,
and Groopman, J. E.
(1998)
Blood
91,
791-797 37.
Cherla, R. P.,
and Ganju, R. K.
(2001)
J. Immunol.
166,
3067-3074 38.
Chernock, R. D.,
Cherla, R. P.,
and Ganju, R. K.
(2001)
Blood
97,
608-615 39.
Ganju, R. K.,
Brubaker, S. A.,
Chernock, R. D.,
Avraham, S.,
and Groopman, J. E.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
17263-17268 40.
Wang, J. M.,
Ueda, H.,
Howard, O. M.,
Grimm, M. C.,
Chertov, O.,
Gong, X.,
Gong, W.,
Resau, J. H.,
Broder, C. C.,
Evans, G.,
Arthur, L. O.,
Ruscetti, F. W.,
and Oppenheim, J. J.
(1998)
J. Immunol.
161,
4309-4317 41.
Ganju, R. K.,
Brubaker, S. A.,
Meyer, J.,
Dutt, P.,
Yang, Y.,
Qin, S.,
Newman, W.,
and Groopman, J. E.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
23169-23175 42.
Signoret, N.,
Pelchen-Matthews, A.,
Mack, M.,
Proudfoot, A. E.,
and Marsh, M.
(2000)
J. Cell. Biol
151,
1281-1294 43.
Shioda, T.,
Nakayama, E. E.,
Tanaka, Y.,
Xin, X.,
Liu, H.,
Kawana-Tachikawa, A.,
Kato, A.,
Sakai, Y.,
Nagai, Y.,
and Iwamoto, A.
(2001)
J. Virol.
75,
3462-3468 44.
Venkatesan, S.,
Petrovic, A.,
Van Ryk, D. I.,
Locati, M.,
Weissman, D.,
and Murphy, P. M.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
2287-2301 45.
Venkatesan, S.,
Petrovic, A.,
Locati, M.,
Kim, Y. O.,
Weissman, D.,
and Murphy, P. M.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
40133-40145 46.
Van Gassen, G., De,
Jonghe, C.,
Pype, S.,
Van Criekinge, W.,
Julliams, A.,
Vanderhoeven, I.,
Woodrow, S.,
Beyaert, R.,
Huylebroeck, D.,
and Van Broeckhoven, C.
(1999)
Neurobiol. Dis.
6,
376-391[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 47.
Wojcik, C.
(1999)
Cell. Mol. Life Sci.
56,
908-917[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 48.
Driscoll, J.
(1994)
Histol. Histopathol.
9,
197-202[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 49.
Ikebe, T.,
Takeuchi, H.,
Jimi, E.,
Beppu, M.,
Shinohara, M.,
and Shirasuna, K.
(1998)
Int. J. Cancer
77,
578-585[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 50.
Brandt, S. M.,
Mariani, R.,
Holland, A. U.,
Hope, T. J.,
and Landau, N. R.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem
277,
17291-17299
Copyright © 2002 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:
![]() |
M. Rey, A. Valenzuela-Fernandez, A. Urzainqui, M. Yanez-Mo, M. Perez-Martinez, P. Penela, F. Mayor Jr, and F. Sanchez-Madrid Myosin IIA is involved in the endocytosis of CXCR4 induced by SDF-1{alpha} J. Cell Sci., March 15, 2007; 120(6): 1126 - 1133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Meagher, G. Arreaza, A. Peters, C. A. Strathdee, P. A. Gilbert, Q.-S. Mi, P. Santamaria, G. A. Dekaban, and T. L. Delovitch CCL4 Protects From Type 1 Diabetes by Altering Islet {beta}-Cell-Targeted Inflammatory Responses Diabetes, March 1, 2007; 56(3): 809 - 817. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. N. Yadav, K. Chaturvedi, and R. D. Howells Inhibition of Agonist-Induced Down-Regulation of the {delta}-Opioid Receptor with a Proteasome Inhibitor Attenuates Opioid Tolerance in Human Embryonic Kidney 293 Cells J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., March 1, 2007; 320(3): 1186 - 1194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Sai, G. Walker, J. Wikswo, and A. Richmond The IL Sequence in the LLKIL Motif in CXCR2 Is Required for Full Ligand-induced Activation of Erk, Akt, and Chemotaxis in HL60 Cells J. Biol. Chem., November 24, 2006; 281(47): 35931 - 35941. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||