![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 21, 18736-18743, May 24, 2002
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the Departments of
Received for publication, February 27, 2002, and in revised form, March 20, 2002
The low density lipoprotein (LDL)
receptor-related protein (LRP) is a multifunctional cell surface
receptor that interacts through its cytoplasmic tail with adaptor and
scaffold proteins that participate in cellular signaling. Its
extracellular domain, like that of the signaling receptor Notch and of
amyloid precursor protein (APP), is proteolytically processed at
multiple positions. This similarity led us to investigate whether LRP,
like APP and Notch, might also be cleaved at a third, intramembranous
or cytoplasmic site, resulting in the release of its intracellular
domain. Using independent experimental approaches we demonstrate that
the cytoplasmic domain is released by a Seven structurally closely related cell surface receptors
constitute the core of the low density lipoprotein
(LDL)1 receptor gene family.
They include the LDL receptor, the LDL receptor-related protein (LRP or
LRP1), LRP1b, megalin, very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) receptor,
apolipoprotein E receptor 2 (apo-ER2), and MEGF7 (multiple
epidermal growth factor-like domains containing protein 7) (1).
Although the members of this evolutionarily ancient gene family all
share the same typical arrangement of protein modules in their
extracellular domains, the biological functions of the individual
members of the family are highly diverse and include roles in cellular
ligand uptake and endocytosis, the transmission of extracellular
signals, vitamin and cholesterol homeostasis, brain development, the
modulation of neurotransmission, and protection from neurodegeneration
(1, 2).
Of this entire receptor family, LRP interacts with by far the largest
number of proteins (3). Ligands that bind to its extracellular domain
include, for instance, Mice in which the LRP gene has been disrupted by homologous
recombination die early during embryonic development (10). The phenotype of the few malformed LRP-deficient embryos that survive until
around E9-E10 is complex and difficult to explain by defects in ligand
endocytosis alone, suggesting that LRP, like the VLDL receptor and the
apo-ER2 (11), could have essential developmental signaling functions
that involve interactions of its cytoplasmic tail with the
intracellular signal transduction machinery.
LRP is a type I integral membrane protein, like the other members of
the family. However, only LRP and its closest relative, LRP1b, are
cleaved at a site that matches the consensus sequence recognized by
furin (12, 13), a processing proteinase that frequently serves to
activate or modify cell surface receptors and secreted proteins upon
exit from the secretory pathway (14). Furin cleavage of the 600-kDa LRP
precursor protein produces the mature cell-surface receptor, which
consists of a carboxyl-terminal 85-kDa fragment and a non-covalently
attached 515-kDa amino-terminal subunit.
Notably, furin also cleaves members of the Notch family of cell surface
signaling proteins, which, like LRP, contain multiple EGF repeats in
their extracellular domain (15, 16). Additionally, Notch proteins
undergo another metalloproteinase-mediated processing step at the cell
surface (17, 18), which is followed by the presenilin/ Interestingly, shedding of LRP from the cell surface has also been
reported (22), and it, too, involves a metalloproteinase (23).
Furthermore, LRP can form a complex with APP by interactions of both
the extracellular (24) and the intracellular domains (5, 25). APP also
undergoes several proteolytic processing events that, as in Notch, lead
to the presenilin/ The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether LRP, in a
manner analogous to Notch and APP, may also be subject to
intramembranous or cytoplasmic proteolytic processing that results in
the release of its intracellular domain from the membrane. Our results
demonstrate that such a cleavage event occurs, that a protease with
Materials--
Phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) was
purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO). Calphostin C was obtained
from Calbiochem (La Jolla, California). The Plasmids and Construction of the LRP-Gal4/VP16 Vector--
For
construction of LRP-Gal4/VP16 the 12,659-14,098 HindIII
fragment of the human LRP cDNA (28) was amplified by PCR using the
following primers, which introduced an NheI site 5' to the endogenous HindIII site at 12,659, eliminated the stop codon
at nucleotide 14,099 and introduced an NheI site at this
position: 5'-GCTAGCCAAGCTTTCAGTCATCGGCAGCATCCGGCTC-3' (sense-LRP),
5'-GCTAGCGCCAAGGGGTCCCCTATCTCGTCCTCAGG-3' (antisense-LRP). The
PCR product was cloned into the plasmid pMstGV via its NheI
sites. pMstGV is based on the commercially available vector pM
(CLONTECH, Palo Alto, CA). It codes for a VP16
transactivation domain 3'-terminal to the Gal4 binding domain of pM and
does no longer carry a stop codon 5'-terminal to the coding sequence
for Gal4. The coding sequences for the LRP fragment plus the Gal4 and
VP16 domains were then excised by HindIII and ligated into the HindIII cut pcDNA3.1-LRP vector (28, 29).
Orientation and sequences of inserts were verified by DNA sequencing.
For the construction of pcDNA3.1-LRP-Gal4, the sequence coding for
the VP16 domain was excised from the pMstGV-LRP fragment intermediate
product with EcoRI and BamHI. Then the newly
generated ends of the plasmid were made blunt in a fill-in reaction
with the Klenow enzyme (Roche Molecular Biochemicals, Mannheim,
Germany). The vector was then re-ligated and sequenced. Its small
HindIII fragment was cloned into the
HindIII-precut pcDNA3.1-LRP plasmid as described.
pcDNA3.1-LRP-T/A-Gal4/VP16 was constructed by PCR-based gene
assembly. Primers 5'-GAGATTGGAAACCCCGCCTACAAGATGTACGAA-3' (sense-T/A) and 5'-TTCGTACATCTTGTAGGCGGGGTTTCCAATCTC-3' (antisense-T/A) were used
to introduce a point mutation into the first NPXY motif NPTY of the cytoplasmic tail of LRP thereby changing its threonine residue
to alanine. The same fragment of LRP that was used for the construction
of pcDNA3.1-LRP-Gal4/V16 was amplified by PCR in two overlapping
pieces using the sense-LRP and antisense-LRP-T/A primers for the first
part and sense-LRP-T/A and antisense-LRP for the second part. These two
overlapping fragments, together with the LRP-sense and LRP-antisense
primers, were used in a second PCR to generate the whole
LRP-HindIII fragment bearing the T/A mutation in the
sequence coding for the cytoplasmic tail of LRP. The subsequent cloning
steps were the same as described for pcDNA3.1-LRP-Gal4/VP16.
pMstGV (pGal4/VP16) was generously provided by X.-W. Cao and T. Südhof, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas,
TX, as were the vectors pMstGV-APP695 (pAPP-Gal4/VP16) and pMstGV-LDLR
(pLDLR-Gal4/VP16) and the pG5E1B-Luc plasmid, which contains five Gal4
binding sites and the E1B minimal promoter in front of the luciferase
firefly gene. pRK5-FE65 (9) and pcDNA3.1-mDab1 (5) have been
described previously. pCMV- Cell Culture and Transfection of 293 Cells--
The human
embryonic kidney cell line HEK 293 (CRL-1573, ATCC) was maintained in
monolayer culture at 37 °C in an 8% CO2 atmosphere. On
day 0 cells were set up at a density of 5 × 105 per
60-mm dish in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM, glucose, 1 g/liter, Cellgro, Herndon, VA) containing 100 units/ml penicillin, 100 µg/ml streptomycin sulfate (Cellgro) and 10% (v/v) fetal calf serum
(FCS) (Atlanta Biologicals, Norcross, GA). On day 2 cells were
transfected by calcium phosphate precipitation (MBS kit, Stratagene, La
Jolla, CA) with 1.5 µg of the pG5E1B-Luc plasmid per 60-mm dish, 0.05 µg of pCMV- Culture of N2aSW10 and N2a385.16 Cells--
N2a cells stably
expressing the APP "Swedish mutant" (N2aSW10) (30) or the APP
Swedish mutant and a dominant negative presenilin-1 (D385A-PS1) (31)
were kindly provided by Sangram S. Sisodia, Chicago, IL. Cells were
grown in 50% DMEM/50% Opti-MEM (Invitrogen, Rockville, MD)
supplemented with 5% (v/v) FCS, 100 units/ml penicillin, 100 µg/ml
streptomycin sulfate, and 200 µg/ml G418 (Invitrogen) for N2aSW10
cells or 200 µg/ml G418 and 200 µg of hygromycin (Invitrogen) for
N2a385.16 cells, in a 8% CO2 atmosphere at 37 °C.
Reporter Gene Assays--
293 and N2a cells were harvested for
reporter gene assays 48 h after transfection. The culture medium
was removed, and the cells were washed once with PBS. After addition of
400 µl of Reporter Lysis Buffer (Promega, Madison, WI) per 60-mm
dish, cells were processed according to the manufacturers'
instructions. Luciferase gene expression was analyzed using the
Luciferase Assay System (Promega). A 10-s integral measurement of light
emission from each reaction mixture was performed in a tube luminometer
(Optocomp II, MOM Instruments).
Preparation of Cell Membranes for Western Blot
Analysis--
Cells were grown to confluency in 100-mm culture dishes.
For the preparation of membranes, culture medium was aspirated and cells were washed twice with ice-cold PBS. Cells were scraped into 1 ml
of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) per dish and centrifuged at 850 × g at 4 °C. Cells were resuspended in hypotonic buffer A (10 mM HEPES-KOH, pH 7.8, 1.5 mM
MgCl2, 10 mM KCl, 0.5 mM
dithiothreitol, 0.2 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 1 mM NaVO3), left on ice for 20 min, and then
passed 10 times through a 22-G needle. After centrifugation at 850 × g for 5 min at 4 °C, the supernatant was recentrifuged
at 100,000 × g for 30 min. Finally, the membrane pellet was resuspended in SDS buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl, pH
6.8, 100 mM NaCl, 1% SDS, 1 mM EDTA).
In Vitro Generation of Free LRP Tail--
The assay was adapted
from the protocol described by Sastre et al. (32) for the
in vitro generation of the APP carboxyl-terminal fragment.
Briefly, 293 cells were transfected with 5 µg of pcDNA3.1-LRP expression plasmid per 100-mm dish by calcium phosphate precipitation. After 2 days the cells were harvested and washed with ice-cold PBS as
described above. The cell pellet was resuspended in 0.5 ml of
homogenization buffer per 100-mm dish (10 mM MOPS, pH 7.0, 10 mM KCl, 1 pellet per 10 ml of Complete mini proteinase
inhibitor mixture from Roche Molecular Biochemicals, Mannheim, Germany) and incubated on ice for 10 min. Cells were broken by passing through a
22-G needle and centrifuged at 1000 × g for 15 min at 4 °C. The supernatant was recentrifuged at 16,000 × g for 20 min at 4 °C. The membrane pellet was then washed
once with ice-cold homogenization buffer and was resuspended in 50 µl
of assay buffer (150 mM sodium citrate, pH 6.4, proteinase
inhibitors as above). Membrane samples were divided into two 25-µl
aliquots and incubated in the absence or presence of 500 nM
DAPT at 0 °C or at 37 °C for 1 h. Samples were then
centrifuged at 100,000 × g for 1 h at 4 °C,
and pellets and supernatants were analyzed by 10-20% SDS-gel electrophoresis.
SDS-PAGE and Immunoblot Analysis--
SDS-gel electrophoresis
and immunoblot analysis of whole cell or membrane lysates were
performed according to standard procedures on 4-12% or 10-20%
SDS-polyacrylamide gels. After electrophoresis and protein transfer to
polyvinylidene difluoride membranes, immunoblot analysis was carried
out with rabbit polyclonal antibodies against a carboxyl-terminal
epitope of LRP (28). Bound antibodies were visualized by enhanced
chemiluminescence (ECL) using SuperSignal CL-HRP Substrate (Pierce,
Rockford, IL) according to the manufacturer's instructions.
The To test whether the cytoplasmic tail of LRP can be released by
intramembranous or intracellular proteolysis, we constructed an
expression vector encoding a chimeric protein, in which a yeast Gal4
DNA binding domain and a VP16 transactivation domain from herpes
simplex virus were fused to the carboxyl-terminal end of the
cytoplasmic tail of full-length LRP (pLRP-Gal4/VP16; Fig. 2A). Proteolytic release of
the tail-Gal4/VP16 fusion protein from the membrane was detected by
measuring Gal4/VP16-dependent luciferase gene expression
from a reporter construct containing multiple Gal4 binding motifs and
the adenoviral E1B minimal promoter, followed by the luciferase gene
(pG5E1B-Luc). A similar experimental strategy had previously been
employed to detect the release of Notch ICD and for identifying the
carboxyl-terminal fragment of APP as part of a transcriptionally active
complex (19, 20, 26).
Proteolytic Processing of Low Density Lipoprotein
Receptor-related Protein Mediates Regulated Release of Its
Intracellular Domain*
,
¶
Molecular Genetics and
§ Biochemistry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical
Center, Dallas, Texas 75390
![]()
ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-secretase-like activity and
that this event is modulated by protein kinase C. Furthermore,
cytoplasmic adaptor proteins that bind to the LRP tail affect the
subcellular localization of the free intracellular domain and may
regulate putative signaling functions. Finally, we show that the
degradation of the free tail fragment is mediated by the proteasome.
These findings suggest a novel role for the intracellular domain of LRP
that may involve the subcellular translocation of preassembled signaling complexes from the plasma membrane.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
2-macroglobulin, plasminogen activators,
clotting factors, lipases, and the amyloid precursor protein (APP). The
cytoplasmic tail of LRP also interacts with an extended set of
intracellular adaptor and scaffold proteins, e.g. Dab1,
c-Jun amino-terminal kinase interacting proteins, the postsynaptic
density protein PSD-95 (4), and the trivalent scaffold protein FE65
(5). The latter protein contains two phosphotyrosine binding domains,
of which the first binds to the LRP tail, whereas the second domain
interacts with an NPXY motif in the cytoplasmic tail
of APP (6-9).
-secretase-dependent release of their
intracellular domains (ICD) (19, 20, 47). Notch-ICD translocates to the nucleus where it stimulates expression of target genes through interaction with transcription factors of the CSL family
(21).
-secretase-dependent release of the
cytoplasmic tail. Recently it was shown that FE65 binding to the APP
tail not only greatly enhances nuclear translocation of the complex but
that this also serves to recruit transcriptional activators, which
could potentially stimulate the expression of target genes that are
regulated by APP cleavage events (26).
-secretase like properties is involved, and that intracellular
proteins such as FE65 under certain conditions can stimulate the
translocation of the tail fragment into the nucleus. The amount of
biologically active cleaved tail fragment can be regulated by
activation of protein kinase C (PKC) by phorbol esters and by
inhibition of the proteasome.
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-secretase inhibitor
DAPT
(N-[N-(3,5,-difluorophenacetyl)-L-alanyl]-S-phenylglycine-t-butyl ester) was synthesized as described previously (27). Lactacystin was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO). L-685,458
was from Bachem (Torrance, CA).
-Gal was obtained from Stratagene (La
Jolla, CA).
-Gal for internal control of transfection efficiency,
the respective receptor construct (1 µg/60-mm dish), and expression
vectors for different adapter proteins or other components as indicated
in the text. On day 3 treatment with PMA or other reagents was
initiated. PMA was solubilized in Me2SO at a
concentration of 1 mM. For stimulation of transfected 293 cells the cell culture medium (DMEM-low glucose + 10% (v/v) FCS + 100 units/ml penicillin/100 µg/ml streptomycin) was exchanged for medium
containing 100 nM PMA, and the cells were cultured for
another 24 h before harvesting. Calphostin C was solubilized in
Me2SO at a concentration of 1 mM and used at a
final concentration of 1 µM. A 20 mM stock
solution of DAPT was prepared in Me2SO and used at final
concentrations ranging from 1 nM to 10 µM. A 10 mM stock solution of L-685,458 was prepared
in Me2SO. Lactacystin was solubilized in H2O at
a concentration of 10 mM and used at a final concentration
of 10 µM.
-Galactosidase assays for internal control of transcription
efficiency were carried out with an aliquot of the cell lysates prepared for the luciferase assay using the Chemiluminescent
-Gal Detection Kit (CLONTECH, Palo Alto, CA). The
normalization of luciferase activity to
-galactosidase activity was
done by dividing the relative light units values obtained with
the first assay by those from the latter reaction. All transfections
for reporter gene assays were done in duplicate and repeated in at
least two independent experiments.
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-secretase-mediated intramembranous cleavage events that in
Notch and APP lead to the release of the proteins' intracellular domains into the cytoplasm occur at a site preceding a valine located
four or three residues, respectively, from the cytoplasmic face of the
membrane (32). The transmembrane segment of LRP contains two valine
residues at a corresponding position (Fig. 1) raising the possibility that LRP might
be cleaved at the same relative position and that this cleavage might
also involve
-secretase.

View larger version (12K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Comparison of the amino acid sequences of the
transmembrane domains of Notch, APP, and LRP. Indicated are the S3
cleavage site of Notch, the corresponding
-secretase cleavage site
in APP, and the respective homologous position in LRP (open
arrowheads). The black arrowheads indicate the
-secretase cleavage sites of APP that result in the production of
A
40 and A
42.

View larger version (11K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Relative luciferase activity in cells
transfected with reporter gene constructs. A,
LRP-Gal4/VP16 construct; the Gal4 DNA binding domain (amino acids
1-147) and the VP16 transactivation domain of the herpes simplex virus
protein VP16 are fused to the carboxyl-terminal end of full-length LRP.
B, reporter gene activity in transfected HEK 293 cells.
Cells were transfected with 1.5 µg of reporter gene plasmid
pG5E1B-Luc, 0.05 µg of control vector pCMV-
-Gal, and 1 µg of
pcDNA3.1-LRP-Gal4/VP16 (expression vector for LRP-Gal4/VP16),
pcDNA3.1-LRP (LRP), pMstGV (Gal4/VP16), or pMstGV-LDLR
(LDLR-Gal4/VP16), respectively. After 48 h the cells were lysed
and luciferase and
-galactosidase activities were determined.
Luciferase reporter gene activity was corrected for transfection
efficiency by dividing relative light units values by those obtained
for galactosidase activity (representative results from more than three
independent experiments).
Proteolytic Release of the LRP Cytoplasmic Domain--
To
determine whether the LRP tail can be proteolytically released from the
membrane, we transfected HEK 293 cells with pLRP-Gal4/VP16, pG5E1B-Luc,
and with a
-galactosidase expression vector (pCMV-
Gal) to control
for transfection efficiency. Transcriptional stimulation by a soluble
Gal4/VP16 fusion protein or by an LDL receptor-Gal4/VP16 (LDLR-Gal4/VP16) chimeric protein, which is not expected to undergo processing, served as positive and negative controls, respectively. LRP-Gal4/VP16 stimulated luciferase activity by ~80 fold, whereas LDLR-Gal4/VP16 had no effect (Fig. 2B), even though
expression of the shorter LDLR-Gal4/VP16 fusion protein was
considerably higher than that of the almost five times larger
LRP-Gal4/VP16 construct (data not shown). These findings indicate that
the cytoplasmic tail of LRP can be proteolytically released from the membrane.
Reporter Gene Activity in LRP-Gal4/VP16-expressing Cells Is
Enhanced by PMA Treatment--
We next sought to determine, whether
the rate at which the cytoplasmic tail of LRP is released from the
membrane can be modulated. Incubation of LRP-Gal4/VP16-transfected
cells with the LRP ligands
2-macroglobulin and thrombospondin, and
with a fusion protein of the LRP binding chaperone RAP with the
constant region of human IgG (33), which can dimerize receptors, had no
effect on the transcriptional activation of the Luc reporter (data not
shown), suggesting that binding of ligands to the extracellular domain does not generally activate the cleavage. However, incubation of the
transfected cells with the phorbol ester PMA robustly increased reporter gene activity from the LRP-Gal4/VP16 construct by ~8 fold
but not from the APP-Gal4/VP16 or LDLR-Gal4/VP16 control constructs
(Fig. 3A).
|
Because phorbol esters are activators of PKC, we determined whether the stimulatory effect of PMA could be blocked by simultaneous treatment of cells with Calphostin C, a non-isozyme-specific PKC inhibitor. Incubation of PMA-treated LRP-Gal4/VP16-transfected cells with 1 µM Calphostin C completely abolished the PMA-mediated increase in reporter gene activity (Fig. 3B), suggesting that PKC can regulate LRP tail release.
The cytoplasmic tail of LRP contains a possible PKC phosphorylation
site as part of the NPTYK sequence motif. To test whether this PKC
phosphorylation site was directly involved in the regulation of tail
release, nuclear import, or stimulation of reporter gene transcription,
we mutated the putatively phosphorylated threonine of the PKC consensus
site to an alanine residue. This mutation did not significantly affect
the ability of PMA to stimulate LRP tail release (Fig.
4A), suggesting that
PKC-mediated phosphorylation of the LRP tail is not the primary
mechanism by which PMA increases reporter gene activation. Also,
deletion of the carboxyl-terminal 25 or 46 amino acids of the LRP tail
did not abolish basal or PMA-induced reporter gene transcription (data
not shown).
|
To determine whether accelerated turnover of LRP at the plasma
membrane, resulting in increased release of the tail from the membrane,
might be the reason for the PMA effect, we incubated untransfected HEK
293 cells in the absence (Fig. 4B, lane 1) or presence (lane 2) of 100 nM PMA for 24 h
and then prepared lysates from the treated and non-treated cells.
Immunoblot analysis revealed greatly decreased levels of the 85-kDa LRP
fragment and of the 600-kDa precursor after incubation with PMA,
whereas a shorter fragment of ~25kDa that reacted with an antibody
directed against the carboxyl-terminal epitope of LRP was increased in
the membrane fractions of PMA-treated 293 cells compared with untreated
cells (Fig. 4C, lanes 2 and 4). This
truncated carboxyl-terminal fragment of LRP is likely generated by
proteolytic processing, or shedding, of the LRP ectodomain (23). Thus,
PMA appears to increase LRP shedding, which would result in increased
availability of substrate for the subsequent intramembranous or
cytoplasmic cleavage event.
-Secretase performs such an
intramembranous proteolytic cleavage step in Notch and APP and thus is
a candidate protease that might mediate the release of the LRP
cytoplasmic domain from the 25-kDa precursor. In a preliminary
experiment the
-secretase inhibitor DAPT (27) did indeed increase
the levels of the 25-kDa fragment in the absence (lane 3) or
presence (lane 1) of PMA.
A
-Secretase-like Activity Participates in the Release of the
LRP Intracellular Domain--
To further examine whether a
-secretase-like activity might be involved in the release of the
cytoplasmic tail of LRP, we treated pAPP-Gal4/VP16- or
pLRP-Gal4/VP16-transfected cells (Fig. 5A) with increasing
concentrations of the
-secretase inhibitors DAPT (27) (closed
circles and triangles) or L-685,458 (34) (open circles) for 24 h. DAPT (closed
triangles) and L-685,458 (not shown) almost completely
abolished APP cleavage-dependent reporter gene activation,
whereas LRP-dependent reporter gene expression
(open and closed circles) was partially, but
significantly, reduced by addition of both inhibitors.
|
Activation of reporter gene activity is an indirect measure of LRP tail
release from cellular membranes. To directly demonstrate this release
of the cytoplasmic domain of LRP, we transfected 293 cells with an LRP
expression plasmid and incubated isolated membranes for 1 h
in vitro in the presence or absence of DAPT at 0 °C or at
37 °C in the absence of cytoplasm (Fig. 5B). Incubation at 37 °C, but not at 0 °C, caused the release of an ~12-kDa
fragment that could be detected with an antibody directed against the
extreme carboxyl terminus of the LRP tail from the membranes (indicated by the arrow). The appearance of this fragment was
completely blocked by DAPT. Furthermore, inhibition of
-secretase
activity by culturing 293 cells in the presence of increasing
concentrations of DAPT was accompanied by the accumulation of the
carboxyl-terminal 25-kDa fragment in the membrane fraction (Fig.
5C). Increased levels of this 25-kDa fragment were also
observed in membrane preparations of N2a cells that stably express a
dominant negative presenilin-1 mutant (PS1-D385A) (31), compared with
control cells (Fig. 5D). LRP tail
cleavage-dependent reporter gene activity was reduced by
~75% in PS1-D385A-expressing N2a cells compared with PS1-wt cells
(Fig. 5E). Taken together, these results suggest that
-secretase is involved in the processing of LRP but that one or more
additional
-secretase-insensitive, and presumably cytoplasmic,
proteases can also participate.
Modulation of LRP Cytoplasmic Domain-dependent Reporter
Activity by Tail Binding Proteins--
The cytoplasmic tails of LRP
and APP contain binding sites for a variety of adaptor and scaffold
proteins, including FE65, a scaffolding protein that stimulates the
nuclear import of the APP cytoplasmic domain and is likely also
involved in the transcription of APP target genes (26), and Dab1, an
adaptor protein that mediates signaling through the VLDL receptor and
the apo-ER2 (11, 35). To determine whether FE65 can modulate reporter
gene activation, we cotransfected 293 cells with pLRP-Gal4/VP16 and
with an expression vector for FE65. APP-Gal4/VP16 and pcDNA3.1-Dab1
plasmids were used as controls. Cells were maintained in the presence
of fetal calf serum at all times. Fig.
6A shows that FE65
cotransfection robustly enhanced APP-Gal4/VP16-dependent
reporter gene activation, whereas it had no effect in cells expressing
LRP-Gal4/VP16 under these conditions (gray boxes).
Cotransfection with the Dab1 expression plasmid strongly reduced
reporter gene activation in both cases (open boxes)
suggesting that Dab1 may either interfere with cleavage directly or may
prevent the binding of cytoplasmic factors that promote nuclear
translocation of the cytoplasmic domain-Gal4/VP16 fusion protein.
However, if the transfected cells were cultured in serum-free medium
for 24 h before harvesting, coexpression of FE65 was now capable
of stimulating reporter gene activity in LRP-Gal4/VP16-expressing cells
by ~8-fold (Fig. 6B). Because the absolute levels of basal
activity in the absence of FE65 were comparable, whether or not serum
was present, these results suggest that either the interaction of FE65
with the LRP tail may be enhanced by post-transcriptional modification
in the absence of serum or that the FE65/LRP tail complex is stabilized
under these conditions.
|
When FE65 binds to the cytoplasmic tail of APP, it can recruit the transcriptional activator Tip60 into the complex, obviating the need for the presence of the VP16 transactivator domain for reporter gene activation (26). Because Tip60 interacts with the same PTB domain in FE65 by which FE65 binds to the LRP tail, we sought to investigate whether binding of FE65 to LRP and recruitment of Tip60 might be mutually exclusive. Fig. 6C shows that an LRP-Gal4 fusion protein that lacks the VP16 transactivator domain is incapable of stimulating the luciferase reporter gene expression, whether FE65, PMA, or fetal calf serum (data not shown) were present or not.
The Intracellular Domain of LRP Is Degraded by the
Proteasome--
To determine whether the proteasome may be involved in
the regulation of the potential biological functions of the LRP
cytoplasmic domain, we exposed cells transfected with either the
LRP-Gal4/VP16 construct or with the soluble Gal4/VP16 control plasmid
to the proteasome inhibitor lactacystin (Fig.
7). Inhibition of proteasomal degradation
strongly enhanced LRP-Gal4/VP16-stimulated reporter gene activity (Fig.
7A) but had only a modest effect on the reporter gene
activity in the control cells (Fig. 7B).
|
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In this study we have reported on a novel proteolytic processing
event that mediates the release of the cytoplasmic domain of LRP from
the membrane. The intracellular domain of LRP contains sequence motifs
for a variety of cytoplasmic adaptor and scaffold proteins (4, 5).
Proteolytic cleavage of the receptor, either within the membrane by a
-secretase-like activity or close to the cytoplasmic leaflet,
results in the release of this domain into the cytoplasm, where it may
modulate signaling, or further translocate to other subcellular compartments.
A characteristic feature that the Notch family members, the amyloid
precursor protein APP, and, as most recently recognized, the epidermal
growth factor receptor family member ErbB4 have in common is the
sequential proteolytic processing at multiple extracellular and
intramembranous sites that ultimately results in the release of their
cytoplasmic domains from the membrane (18, 26, 36-39). Before
intramembranous cleavage can proceed, the bulk of the extracellular
domains of the protein apparently must be shed from the cell surface.
In each case, metalloproteinases, e.g. tumor necrosis
factor-alpha converting enzyme, have been shown to play a role (17,
40), although in the case of APP,
-secretase, i.e. the
aspartyl proteinase beta-site APP cleaving enzyme, can also mediate
this event (41). LRP, like the Notch family members, undergoes cleavage
by furin in a late secretory compartment (12) and is cleaved by a
metalloproteinase (23). Furthermore, the amino acid sequence of the
transmembrane segment of LRP close to the cytoplasmic leaflet resembles
that of Notch and APP (Fig. 1), which prompted us to investigate
whether cleavage at a third site in the membrane might also mediate
release of the cytoplasmic domain. Using a luciferase reporter (Fig.
2A) and a biochemical in vitro assay, we could
readily detect this cytoplasmic tail release (Figs. 2B and
5B), raising the question whether
-secretase, which
mediates this step in the other proteins, may also act on LRP. This
hypothesis was supported by earlier work from Van Uden and colleagues
(42), who had shown that overexpression of wild type or of a mutant
dominant active form of presenilin 1 (PS1) greatly decreased the
expression of LRP at the surface of cultured cells. In the reporter
gene assay (Fig. 5A) as well as in the in vitro
cleavage assay (Fig. 5B) the
-secretase inhibitors DAPT
(27) and L-685,458 (34) strongly inhibited LRP tail
cleavage. Furthermore, incubation of the cells with the inhibitor
resulted in the accumulation of a membrane-bound carboxyl-terminal
fragment of LRP of ~25 kDa (Fig. 5C). The same fragment
also accumulated in N2a cells that stably express a dominant negative
presenilin-1 mutant (PS1-D385A) (Fig. 5D), suggesting that
-secretase may indeed mediate this event. However, because neither
-secretase inhibitors nor dominant negative PS1 completely
inhibited release of the cytoplasmic tail of LRP, another,
potentially cytoplasmic, protease may also participate.
As had been noted during the studies on Notch cleavage (43), sequences
in the cytoplasmic tail of LRP itself were not required for the
regulation of this cleavage step, because truncations of the LRP tail
(data not shown) and point mutations that alter the PKC consensus
phosphorylation site in the LRP tail (Fig. 4A) had no
significant effect on reporter gene activation. However, exposure of
cultured cells to phorbol esters, which activate PKC, strongly
increased the activity of the luciferase reporter gene (Fig.
3A). This was accompanied by a profound reduction in
cellular LRP with a concomitant augmentation of the levels of a
membrane-associated carboxyl-terminal fragment of LRP of ~25kDa (Fig.
4, B and C), suggesting increased extracellular
cleavage and ectodomain shedding of the protein and, consequently,
increased substrate availability for the one or more enzymes that
mediate the ultimate intramembranous or cytosolic cleavage step.
Consistent with this interpretation is the finding by Ni et
al. (37) who showed that induction of PKC by phorbol esters
stimulates tumor necrosis factor-
converting enzyme mediated
turnover of ErbB4 and accumulation of the membrane-associated carboxyl-terminal fragment. That the increase in LRP turnover was
caused by stimulation of PKC was further supported by the finding that
Calphostin C, an inhibitor of PKC that is not specific for any
particular isozyme, prevented the cytoplasmic release of the tail in
the luciferase reporter gene assay (Fig. 3B).
LRP, like APP, binds the scaffold protein FE65, which was originally identified as a transcriptional activator (44), on its cytoplasmic tail (5). Cao (26) recently reported on the FE65-mediated stimulation of the transcription of a luciferase reporter gene in an assay that was dependent on the release of the APP cytoplasmic domain from the membrane. In these experiments FE65 mediated this transcriptional stimulation in two ways: First, FE65 directly promotes nuclear translocation (45), and second, FE65 binds the transcriptional activator and histone acetyltransferase Tip60 via its amino-terminal PTB domain (26). We tested, therefore, whether FE65 was also capable of enhancing reporter gene activity in our assay, which was dependent on the release of the LRP intracellular domain. Under normal cell culture conditions, i.e. in the presence of fetal calf serum, which contains a broad range of mitogens and growth factors, FE65 did not significantly alter LRP-Gal4/VP16-dependent reporter gene transcription (Fig. 6A). In contrast, cotransfection of the cells with a Dab1 expression plasmid potently suppressed reporter gene transcription. This finding suggests that Dab1 binding to the tail may interfere with another endogenous factor that, like FE65, can promote nuclear import, or that can directly stimulate gene transcription.
In the absence of serum, reporter gene activity was greatly enhanced by FE65 cotransfection (Fig. 6B) suggesting that post-translational modification of LRP, FE65, or another protein that interacts with FE65 underlies this effect. In contrast to the findings for APP, FE65 was incapable of stimulating reporter gene activation when the VP16 transactivation domain was omitted from the LRP tail fusion complex, in the presence or absence of PMA (Fig. 6C), suggesting that interaction of the amino-terminal PTB domain of FE65 with the LRP tail and with Tip60 are mutually exclusive.
How could LRP tail cleavage modulate cellular signaling? The LRP intracellular domain contains numerous binding sites for adaptor and scaffold proteins that constitutively, or under specific conditions, may recruit other biologically active proteins, e.g. kinases such as mitogen-activated protein kinase kinases, JNK, or Src family members into the complex. Release of the LRP tail from the membrane by intramembranous or cytosolic cleavage could translocate this complex to target sites anywhere in the cell, including the nucleus, where it may modulate intracellular signaling events. Regulated intramembranous proteolysis and release of a transcriptional activator has first been shown for the sterol regulatory element binding proteins (46). At present no specific proteins or genes have been identified that are regulated by the release of the ErbB4, APP, or the LRP tail from the plasma membrane, whereas in the case of Notch family members CSL-regulated genes have been identified as targets for the Notch ICD (21).
The proteolytic release of intracellular domains has turned out to be
another distinct mechanism by which cells can relay signals from the
extracellular space to their interior. The question now arises how
universal this mechanism is. Shedding has long been recognized as a
feature by which the extracellular domains of many cell surface
proteins are released into the extracellular space or into the
circulation. We now have to wonder whether in many, if not all, of
these instances shedding of the extracellular domains is followed by an
intramembranous cleavage. This may involve
-secretase or a similar
enzyme with relaxed sequence specificity that requires a substrate with
a short extracellular domain. The subsequent release of the cytoplasmic
domain may be a general mechanism by which these proteins transmit a
final message to their host cell.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
We are indebted to Wen-Ling Niu and Christine Alvares for excellent technical assistance, to Tom Südhof and Xin-Wei Cao for the plasmids they provided, to Sangram S. Sisodia and Seong-Hun Kim for the gift of the N2aSW10 and N2a385.16 cell lines, to Eddie Kao for valuable suggestions, and to Hans Bock, Uwe Beffert, and Richard Anderson for critical their reading of the manuscript.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health Grants HL20948, HL63762, and NS43408, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (to P. M.), by the Alzheimer Association, and by the Perot Family Foundation.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.
¶ An Established Investigator of the American Heart Association and Parke Davis and recipient of a Wolfgang-Paul Award from the Humboldt Foundation. To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Molecular Genetics, University of Texas Southwestern, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75390-9046. Tel.: 214-648-5633; Fax: 214-648-8804; E-mail: Joachim.Herz@UTSouthwestern.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, March 20, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M201979200
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviations used are: LDL, low density lipoprotein; LRP, LDL receptor-related protein; VLDL, very low density lipoprotein; apo-ER2, apolipoprotein E receptor 2; APP, amyloid precursor protein; ICD, intracellular domain; PKC, protein kinase C; PMA, phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate; DAPT, N-[N-(3,5,-difluorophenacetyl)-L-alanyl]-S-phenylglycine-t-butyl ester; VP16, viral protein 16; JNK, c-Jun amino-terminal kinase; DMEM, Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium; FCS, fetal calf serum; MOPS, 4-morpholinepropanesulfonic acid; PS1, presenilin-1; wt, wild type; PTB, phosphotyrosine binding.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Herz, J. (2001) Neuron 29, 571-581[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 2. | Willnow, T. E., Nykjaer, A., and Herz, J. (1999) Nat. Cell Biol. 1, E157-E162[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 3. | Herz, J., and Strickland, D. K. (2001) J. Clin. Invest. 108, 779-784[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 4. |
Gotthardt, M.,
Trommsdorff, M.,
Nevitt, M. F.,
Shelton, J.,
Richardson, J. A.,
Stockinger, W.,
Nimpf, J.,
and Herz, J.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
25616-25624 |
| 5. |
Trommsdorff, M.,
Borg, J. P.,
Margolis, B.,
and Herz, J.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
33556-33560 |
| 6. |
Fiore, F.,
Zambrano, N.,
Minopoli, G.,
Donini, V.,
Duilio, A.,
and Russo, T.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
30853-30856 |
| 7. |
Bressler, S. L.,
Gray, M. D.,
Sopher, B. L., Hu, Q.,
Hearn, M. G.,
Pham, D. G.,
Dinulos, M. B.,
Fukuchi, K.,
Sisodia, S. S.,
Miller, M. A.,
Disteche, C. M.,
and Martin, G. M.
(1996)
Hum. Mol. Genet.
5,
1589-1598 |
| 8. |
Guenette, S. Y.,
Chen, J.,
Jondro, P. D.,
and Tanzi, R. E.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
93,
10832-10837 |
| 9. | Borg, J. P., Ooi, J., Levy, E., and Margolis, B. (1996) Mol. Cell. Biol. 16, 6229-6241[Abstract] |
| 10. | Herz, J., Clouthier, D. E., and Hammer, R. E. (1992) Cell 71, 411-421[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 11. | Trommsdorff, M., Gotthardt, M., Hiesberger, T., Shelton, J., Stockinger, W., Nimpf, J., Hammer, R. E., Richardson, J. A., and Herz, J. (1999) Cell 97, 689-701[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 12. | Willnow, T. E., Moehring, J. M., Inocencio, N. M., Moehring, T. J., and Herz, J. (1996) Biochem. J. 313, 71-76[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 13. |
Liu, C. X., Li, Y.,
Obermoeller-McCormick, L. M.,
Schwartz, A. L.,
and Bu, G.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
28889-28896 |
| 14. | Steiner, D. F. (1998) Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2, 31-39[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 15. | Blaumueller, C. M., Qi, H., Zagouras, P., and Artavanis-Tsakonas, S. (1997) Cell 90, 281-291[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 16. |
Logeat, F.,
Bessia, C.,
Brou, C.,
LeBail, O.,
Jarriault, S.,
Seidah, N. G.,
and Israel, A.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
8108-8112 |
| 17. | Brou, C., Logeat, F., Gupta, N., Bessia, C., LeBail, O., Doedens, J. R., Cumano, A., Roux, P., Black, R. A., and Israel, A. (2000) Mol. Cell 5, 207-216[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 18. | Mumm, J. S., Schroeter, E. H., Saxena, M. T., Griesemer, A., Tian, X., Pan, D. J., Ray, W. J., and Kopan, R. (2000) Mol. Cell 5, 197-206[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 19. | Lecourtois, M., and Schweisguth, F. (1998) Curr. Biol. 8, 771-774[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 20. | Struhl, G., and Adachi, A. (1998) Cell 93, 649-660[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 21. |
Artavanis-Tsakonas, S.,
Rand, M. D.,
and Lake, R. J.
(1999)
Science
284,
770-776 |
| 22. |
Quinn, K. A.,
Grimsley, P. G.,
Dai, Y. P.,
Tapner, M.,
Chesterman, C. N.,
and Owensby, D. A.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
23946-23951 |
| 23. | Quinn, K. A., Pye, V. J., Dai, Y. P., Chesterman, C. N., and Owensby, D. A. (1999) Exp. Cell Res. 251, 433-441[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 24. | Kounnas, M. Z., Moir, R. D., Rebeck, G. W., Bush, A. I., Argraves, W. S., Tanzi, R. E., Hyman, B. T., and Strickland, D. K. (1995) Cell 82, 331-340[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 25. |
Kinoshita, A.,
Whelan, C. M.,
Smith, C. J.,
Mikhailenko, I.,
Rebeck, G. W.,
Strickland, D. K.,
and Hyman, B. T.
(2001)
J. Neurosci.
21,
8354-8361 |
| 26. |
Cao, X.,
and Sudhof, T. C.
(2001)
Science
293,
115-120 |
| 27. | Dovey, H. F., John, V., Anderson, J. P., Chen, L. Z., de Saint Andrieu, P., Fang, L. Y., Freedman, S. B., Folmer, B., Goldbach, E., Holsztynska, E. J., Hu, K. L., Johnson-Wood, K. L., Kennedy, S. L., Kholodenko, D., Knops, J. E., Latimer, L. H., Lee, M., Liao, Z., Lieberburg, I. M., Motter, R. N., Mutter, L. C., Nietz, J., Quinn, K. P., Sacchi, K. L., Seubert, P. A., Shopp, G. M., Thorsett, E. D., Tung, J. S., Wu, J., Yang, S., Yin, C. T., Schenk, D. B., May, P. C., Altstiel, L. D., Bender, M. H., Boggs, L. N., Britton, T. C., Clemens, J. C., Czilli, D. L., Dieckman-McGinty, D. K., Droste, J. J., Fuson, K. S., Gitter, B. D., Hyslop, P. A., Johnstone, E. M., Li, W. Y., Little, S. P., Mabry, T. E., Miller, F. D., and Audia, J. E. (2001) J. Neurochem. 76, 173-181[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 28. | Herz, J., Hamann, U., Rogne, S., Myklebost, O., Gausepohl, H., and Stanley, K. K. (1988) EMBO J. 7, 4119-4127[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 29. |
Ulery, P. G.,
Beers, J.,
Mikhailenko, I.,
Tanzi, R. E.,
Rebeck, G. W.,
Hyman, B. T.,
and Strickland, D. K.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
7410-7415 |
| 30. | Willnow, T. E., and Herz, J. (1994) J. Cell Sci. 107, 719-726[Abstract] |
| 31. |
Kim, S. H.,
Leem, J. Y.,
Lah, J. J.,
Slunt, H. H.,
Levey, A. I.,
Thinakaran, G.,
and Sisodia, S. S.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
43343-43350 |
| 32. | Sastre, M., Steiner, H., Fuchs, K., Capell, A., Multhaup, G., Condron, M. M., Teplow, D. B., and Haass, C. (2001) EMBO Rep. 2, 835-841[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 33. |
Herz, J.,
Goldstein, J. L.,
Strickland, D. K., Ho, Y. K.,
and Brown, M. S.
(1991)
J. Biol. Chem.
266,
21232-21238 |
| 34. | Shearman, M. S., Beher, D., Clarke, E. E., Lewis, H. D., Harrison, T., Hunt, P., Nadin, A., Smith, A. L., Stevenson, G., and Castro, J. L. (2000) Biochemistry 39, 8698-8704[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 35. |
Howell, B. W.,
Herrick, T. M.,
and Cooper, J. A.
(1999)
Genes Dev.
13,
643-648 |
| 36. | Lin, S. Y., Makino, K., Xia, W., Matin, A., Wen, Y., Kwong, K. Y., Bourguignon, L., and Hung, M. C. (2001) Nat. Cell Biol. 3, 802-808[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 37. | Ni, C. Y., Murphy, M. P., Golde, T. E., and Carpenter, G. (2001) Science 25, 25 |
| 38. | Cupers, P., Orlans, I., Craessaerts, K., Annaert, W., and De Strooper, B. (2001) J. Neurochem. 78, 1168-1178[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 39. |
Kimberly, W. T.,
Zheng, J. B.,
Guenette, S. Y.,
and Selkoe, D. J.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
40288-40292 |
| 40. |
Rio, C.,
Buxbaum, J. D.,
Peschon, J. J.,
and Corfas, G.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
10379-10387 |
| 41. |
Esler, W. P.,
and Wolfe, M. S.
(2001)
Science
293,
1449-1454 |
| 42. | Van Uden, E., Carlson, G., St, George-Hyslop, P., Westaway, D., Orlando, R., Mallory, M., Rockenstein, E., and Masliah, E. (1999) Mol. Cell Neurosci. 14, 129-140[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 43. | Struhl, G., and Adachi, A. (2000) Mol. Cell 6, 625-636[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 44. |
Duilio, A.,
Zambrano, N.,
Mogavero, A. R.,
Ammendola, R.,
Cimino, F.,
and Russo, T.
(1991)
Nucleic Acids Res.
19,
5269-5274 |
| 45. |
Minopoli, G.,
de Candia, P.,
Bonetti, A.,
Faraonio, R.,
Zambrano, N.,
and Russo, T.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
6545-6550 |
| 46. | Sakai, J., Duncan, E. A., Rawson, R. B., Hua, X., Brown, M. S., and Goldstein, J. L. (1996) Cell 85, 1037-1046[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 47. | De Strooper, B., Annaert, W., Cupers, P., Saftig, P., Craessaerts, K., Mumm, J. S., Schroeter, E. H., Schrijvers, V., Wolfe, M. S., Ray, W. J., Goate, A., and Kopan, R. (1999) Nature 398, 518-522[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |