![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 29, 25855-25858, July 19, 2002
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the Department of Cell Biology and Histology, Academic
Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P. O. Box 22700, 1100 DE
Amsterdam, and Department of Membrane Enzymology, Centre for
Biomembranes and Lipid Enzymology, Institute of Biomembranes, Utrecht
University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands
Until some 15 years ago, sphingolipids were
generally believed to protect the cell surface against harmful factors
in the environment by forming a mechanically stable and chemically
resistant outer leaflet of the plasma membrane lipid bilayer.
Furthermore, complex glycosphingolipids were found to be involved in
specific functions like recognition and signaling (1). Whereas the
first feature would depend on physical properties of the sphingolipids, the signaling functions involve specific interactions of the complex glycan structures on the glycosphingolipids with similar lipids on
neighboring cells or with proteins. Since then, two findings have
revolutionized the field. (i) Simple sphingolipid metabolites, like
ceramide and sphingosine 1-phosphate, have been found to be important
mediators in signaling cascades of apoptosis, proliferation, and stress
responses (reviews by Hannun and Obeid (66) and Spiegel and
Milstien (67)). (ii) It has been realized that ceramide-based lipids
self-aggregate in cellular membranes to form a separate phase that
is less fluid (liquid-ordered) than the bulk liquid-disordered phospholipids based on diacylglycerol. Sphingolipid-based microdomains or "rafts" were originally proposed to sort membrane proteins along
the cellular pathways of membrane transport (2). Presently, most
excitement focuses on their organizing functions in signal transduction
(3).
Sphingolipids are synthesized in the
ER1 and the Golgi but are
enriched in plasma membrane and endosomes where they perform many of
their functions. Thus, sphingolipids travel between organelles. Transport occurs via transport vesicles and via monomeric transport through the cytosol. Furthermore, some sphingolipids efficiently translocate across cellular membranes. That transport is not random is
clear from the heterogeneous distribution of sphingolipids over the
cell; sphingolipids are virtually absent from mitochondria and the ER
but constitute 20-35 mol % of the plasma membrane lipids (Table
I). Furthermore, signaling pools of
sphingolipids do not freely mix with pools of biosynthesis and
degradation (reviews by Hannun and Obeid (66), Merrill (68), and
Spiegel and Milstien (67)). The specificity in sphingolipid transport
is the topic of the present review.
Ceramide--
The first steps in sphingolipid synthesis are the
condensation of L-serine and palmitoyl-CoA to
ketosphinganine and its reduction to sphinganine in the ER membrane. In
yeast, these lipids do not feed into signaling pools (4), and exogenous
sphingoid bases need to go through a cycle of phosphorylation and
dephosphorylation before they can be utilized for ceramide synthesis
(5). This suggests that sphingoid bases synthesized de novo
are channeled through the pathway into ceramide without being able to
escape. In yeast, ceramide is then converted to
inositolphosphoceramide and the mannosyl derivatives
mannosylinositolphosphoceramide and mannosyldiinositolphosphoceramide
on the lumenal surface of the Golgi (6). In mammals, ceramide is
utilized for the synthesis of glucosylceramide (GlcCer) on the
cytosolic side of the Golgi, sphingomyelin (SM) on the lumenal surface
of the Golgi, and in specialized cells, e.g. many epithelial
cells, of galactosylceramide (GalCer) in the lumen of the ER (Fig.
1) (7). Because ceramide synthesis occurs
on the cytosolic side of the ER, the rate of ceramide
translocation toward the lumena of ER and Golgi affects the relative
synthesis of the various products. If the t1/2 of
spontaneous ceramide translocation would be tens of minutes (8), this
is slow compared with the vesicular transport between ER and Golgi
(minutes). However, translocation may be faster in the unsaturated
lipid environment of the ER. In addition, ER and Golgi may possess
proteins that stimulate ceramide translocation. Ceramide transport to
the site of SM synthesis can be inhibited under conditions where
transport to the site of GlcCer synthesis and ER-Golgi vesicle
transport are normal (9), and besides the vesicular pathway, a
non-vesicular mechanism delivers ceramide to the Golgi in mammalian
cells and yeast (10, 11). In yeast, this alternative pathway depends on
ER-Golgi membrane contact and on a cytosolic factor and is
energy-independent (11). Interestingly, close apposition of the ER to
cisternae of the trans-Golgi has been observed in mammalian cells (12).
In the model of Fig. 1, GlcCer synthase in the cis-Golgi receives
ceramide via the vesicular pathway whereas GlcCer synthase and SM
synthase in the trans-Golgi (13) receive ceramide from the ER via
membrane contacts. Similar contacts have often been observed between ER
and mitochondria (12). They may be responsible for the transfer of
signaling ceramide to mitochondria. A mitochondrial ceramidase has been identified (Hannun and Obeid (66)).
Glucosylceramide--
GlcCer synthesized on the cytosolic surface
of the Golgi is partially converted to complex glycosphingolipids in
the Golgi lumen (review by Kolter et al. (69)). Experiments
with brefeldin A, which fuses the cis-medial Golgi with the ER, have
suggested that the enzymes synthesizing lactosylceramide (LacCer; Fig.
1) and the first complex glycosphingolipids are in the early Golgi. However, the bulk of these events is thought to occur in the
trans-Golgi or trans-Golgi network (TGN) in vivo (14, 15).
GlcCer is probably translocated across the Golgi membrane by an
energy-independent translocator (14, 16). Alternatively, GlcCer may be
translocated toward the lumen by MDR1 P-glycoprotein, an ATP-binding
cassette transporter that causes multidrug resistance (17). However, so
far, translocation of GlcCer by MDR1 has only been proven for short
chain analogs (18, 19). MDR1 is mostly found at the plasma membrane,
where it may clear the cytosolic surface of GlcCer by translocation
toward the exoplasmic leaflet. GlcCer has access to this cytosolic
surface via the cytosolic side of transport vesicles or, alternatively,
via monomeric transport throughout the cytosol (20), possibly mediated
by the glycolipid transfer protein (21). An apical GlcCer translocator
could thus enrich GlcCer on the apical as compared with the basolateral
surface of epithelial cells, after which the difference in lipid
composition between the two domains would be maintained by tight
junctions acting as a barrier to lipid diffusion in the outer leaflet
of the lipid bilayer (22). It is probably by a similar translocator that sphingosine 1-phosphate after synthesis in the cytosol reaches the
outside of the plasma membrane and is secreted.
Complex Sphingolipids and Sphingomyelin--
GalCer synthesized in
the ER lumen may flip toward the cytosolic surface (16), from where it
has access to the same sites as GlcCer. In contrast, complex
glycosphingolipids and SM synthesized in the lumen of the Golgi appear
unable to translocate from the lumenal toward the cytosolic surface
(14, 16). As a consequence, they can only leave the Golgi via the
lumenal surface of transport vesicles (Fig. 1). This has been confirmed
for the complex glycosphingolipid GM3 (sialyl-LacCer (23)), SM (7), and
for the yeast inositol sphingolipids (24). The enrichment of complex
glycosphingolipids and SM in the exoplasmic leaflet of the apical
plasma membrane of epithelial cells (7) as compared with the
basolateral surface (Table I) has led to the proposal that these
sphingolipids self-aggregate at the site of budding of apical transport
vesicles in the TGN (25). Basolateral vesicles would have lower
sphingolipid levels but the same high concentration of cholesterol.
Sphingolipid and cholesterol concentrations are low in the ER, implying
that retrograde transport vesicles are devoid of sphingolipids and
cholesterol (22). This has been experimentally confirmed (26). These
data led to the simple model for sphingolipid sorting of Fig.
2A. Sphingolipid rafts are
thought to occur in the early Golgi (27), possibly even in the ER
(28).
A large body of evidence supports the notion that the lipids of
eukaryotic plasma membranes display a heterogeneous lateral distribution. Biophysical studies on model membranes have firmly established the principles by which mixtures of sphingolipids, unsaturated glycerophospholipids, and cholesterol can segregate into
two fluid phases, where the sphingolipids and part of the cholesterol
segregate into a "liquid-ordered" domain from the unsaturated
lipids in a "liquid-disordered" phase. At the same time, these
studies have delimited the applicability of detergents in the cold to
isolate the domains as detergent-insoluble remnants that float in
sucrose gradients (3). A number of questions concerning the structural
characteristics of the liquid-ordered domains remain to be solved.
(a) What percentage of the cell surface is occupied by
rafts? The diameter of sphingolipid/cholesterol rafts on the outer surface of the plasma membrane has been estimated by a number of
approaches to be small (tens to hundreds of nm) compared with that of
cells (tens of µm) and to occupy some 10% of the cell surface (29,
30). In contrast, sphingolipids constitute 20-50% of the polar lipids
of the plasma membrane (Table I) where they are concentrated in the
outer bilayer leaflet. Thus, they completely cover the apical surface
of epithelial cells, whereas the relative occupancy will be close to
40% in non-epithelial cells. In support of the latter, roughly
one-half of the plasma membrane resisted extraction by cold detergent
(31, 32). In a monolayer consisting of apical membrane lipids from
kidney, only 50% was covered by liquid-ordered rafts whereas the outer
leaflet of the apical membrane would consist exclusively of
sphingolipids (33).
(b) However, in the experimental monolayer the lipids of the
outer and inner leaflets of the plasma membrane mixed, and the domain
properties of the lipids of the cytosolic leaflet are unknown. From the
fact that dually acylated proteins colocalize with the sphingolipid/cholesterol domains as measured by various techniques, it
is assumed that liquid-ordered rafts exist in the cytosolic leaflet of
the plasma membrane as well. Of the phosphatidylserine, confined to the
cytosolic leaflet by the aminophospholipid translocase, 70% may be
disaturated (34), whereas in yeast PI contained some disaturated
species (35). These lipids could thus form the basis for a
liquid-ordered phase. In pure lipid membranes, rafts on one side of the
membrane perfectly match rafts in the opposite leaflet (36). However,
from the low concentration of raft-lipids in the cytosolic leaflet it
is unlikely that cytosolic rafts fully complement rafts in the outer
leaflet of the plasma membrane.
(c) If the rafts measured by biophysical techniques are
different from the rafts as defined by detergent insolubility (see question a), does this imply that different types of raft
exist within a single membrane? Indeed, studies locating the
gangliosides GM1, GM3, and GD3, various proteins with a
glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI) anchor, and caveolin have clearly
established that different liquid-ordered domains co-exist on the cell
surface (see Refs. 37 and 38). Small ganglioside-rich microdomains can
exist within larger ordered domains in both natural and model membranes (39, 40). Caveolae are examples of such "super" rafts being coupled to cytosolic rafts as defined by the acylated kinases (Fig.
2B). Cytosolic rafts may colocalize with each type of domain in the outer leaflet or with only one of the various types of domains.
Coupling may involve caveolin or membrane-spanning proteins or may
depend on phase-coupling between the opposed lipid domains.
(d) By what mechanisms do membrane proteins locate to
domains? One determinant may be a long transmembrane domain that would fit the thicker raft (41, 42). Membranes in cells occur in at least
three thicknesses (Fig. 2A). The ER has the thickness of a
pure phospholipid bilayer (hydrophobic thickness of some 3.5 nm), the
liquid-disordered phase of the plasma membrane displays the thickness
of phospholipid plus cholesterol (4 nm), and the sphingolipid rafts may
be 4.5-5.5 nm thick (42). Because the thickness of a raft depends on
whether it is matched by a cytosolic raft and on the length of the
amide-linked fatty acids, the various types of raft may display a
distinct thickness and recruit unique sets of proteins. The mechanism
of raft association of proteins with multiple transmembrane domains and
of protein-protein complexes is more difficult to understand. A GPI
anchor targets proteins to specific rafts. The mechanism is not clear.
They can be displaced from rafts by gangliosides (see Ref. 33). A
reduction of mobility by for example binding of a multivalent ligand
also stimulates raft association. Acylation is a signal for raft
localization on the cytosolic side (43).
(e) What are the physical properties that determine the
affinity of a certain lipid for rafts? Although this question has been
answered for model membranes of simple lipid compositions (3),
biomembranes contain mixtures of 50-100 lipid species and various
types of rafts. This means that many aspects of lipid-lipid immiscibility in these membranes remain to be resolved. Fluorescent reporter molecules have been helpful in spotting lipid sorting events.
However, mostly it is not clear to what extent such a molecule mimics a
natural lipid.
Plasma membrane sphingolipids are continuously taken up into the
cell via the membrane flux of endocytosis. In addition, lipids on
the cytosolic surface may transfer to other membranes as monomers.
Non-vesicular Uptake from the Plasma Membrane--
Most
sphingolipids in the exoplasmic leaflet of the plasma membrane bilayer
have no access to the cytosolic side under resting conditions. One
exception is sphingosine. When added exogenously to cells or when
produced in lysosomes, it spontaneously translocates to the cytosolic
surface and equilibrates with intracellular membranes. It has been
suggested that during cell stimulation, SM may translocate via a
scramblase protein to the cytosolic surface where it is then
hydrolyzed to ceramide by a neutral sphingomyelinase (see Refs. 44 and
45). It is not fully clear how this ceramide reaches sites where it is
reutilized for synthesis of SM and GlcCer. Surprisingly, a Golgi
protein with lipid transfer specificity for SM strongly stimulated SM
resynthesis (46). Ceramide appears unable to leave the lumen of the
lysosome (47), possibly due to its inability to leave the internal
membranes where it is produced. Exogenous sphingosine 1-phosphate,
which binds to specific cell surface receptors, apparently translocates
to the cytosolic surface via the ABC transporter CFTR, the cystic
fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (48). In addition,
galactosylsphingosine and glucosylsphingosine, when added to cells, are
acylated probably after translocation toward the cytosolic surface.
After translocation, lysosphingolipids can freely move through the cell
due to their high off-rate from membranes, whereas the resulting GalCer
and GlcCer may fulfill functions on the cytosolic surface (49).
Only in one study of many, an exogenous GlcCer (analog) was reported to
flip toward the cytosolic surface of the plasma membrane (see Refs. 7
and 50). It is not clear whether complex glycosphingolipids ever reach
the cytosolic surface of the plasma membrane, nor is it clear what
would be their fate. Interestingly, specific interactions of
glycosphingolipids have been reported with cytosolic proteins like
calmodulin (51). In addition, if gangliosides reach mitochondria during
signaling events (52), they must first have reached a cytosolic surface
(Fig. 1).
Endocytosis--
Like other lipids, sphingolipids follow the bulk
membrane flow through the exocytotic and endocytotic vesicular
transport pathways. From studies on the transport of (mainly) membrane
proteins a complex pattern of pathways and compartments has been
identified (Fig. 3). Sphingolipids have
been shown to pass through each of these compartments. High
concentrations of complex glycosphingolipids have been observed in the
internal membranes of late endosomes (53, 54), most likely the site of
their degradation. On the other hand, studies on the transport and
Golgi glycosylation of exogenous glycosphingolipid (analogs) have
established that most sphingolipids recycle from the early (sorting)
endosomes, the late endosomes, and the recycling endosomes to the
plasma membrane. At the same time, a fraction of the complex
sphingolipids, but particularly GlcCer, reaches the Golgi complex (7).
The latter is also true for the glycolipid-binding toxins like cholera
and Shiga toxin and Escherichia coli verotoxin. From the
Golgi, the toxin-glycolipid complexes follow the retrograde pathway all
the way to the ER, where the active subunit is translocated across the
membrane into the cytosol (e.g. Ref. 55). Also in the
absence of toxin, a small fraction of the complex glycosphingolipids
reaches the ER (53).
Although ample evidence supports lipid sorting by domains in the
various endocytotic organelles, most of this evidence is derived from
using lipid analogs, toxins, antibodies and virus bound to
glycosphingolipids, and GPI-proteins as raft markers. The quantitative
behavior of the natural lipids and the size of the various pathways
remain to be established. Analogs of LacCer and globoside were
endocytosed by a clathrin-independent subclass of the vesicles that
took up SM, indicating sorting at the plasma membrane (56). The two
pathways led to different classes of early endosomes, both of which had
a connection to the Golgi. Both clathrin-dependent and
-independent pathways are followed by glycolipid-bound toxins
(e.g. Refs. 55 and 56). The clathrin-independent pathway of
toxin transport has been suggested to provide very efficient access to
the Golgi for GPI-proteins (55) and might be a raft pathway.
Interestingly, a rise in the cellular cholesterol concentration
misrouted LacCer to the lysosomes. The latter situation was also
encountered in a number of sphingolipid storage diseases (see Ref. 56).
Either high cholesterol levels abolished the clathrin-independent
pathway to the Golgi, or alternatively, high cholesterol affected the
partitioning of the LacCer analog into the proper membrane domain. The
biophysical basis for domain-mediated sorting in the endosomes, notably
the interaction between the various domains and coat proteins, remains
to be established.
Endocytotic lipid sorting is particularly interesting in epithelial
cells, as these display a transcellular vesicular pathway but at the
same time need to maintain the difference in apical and basolateral
lipid composition. In initial studies in Madin-Darby canine kidney
cells no specificity was observed in the transcytosis of SM and GlcCer
analogs, which allowed for their use as bulk membrane markers (7).
However, sorting between these analogs was observed in
hepatocyte-derived HepG2 cells. It was concluded that the lipids are
sorted by lateral segregation in an apical endosome, termed the
"subapical compartment" (see Ref. 57) or "apical recycling
compartment" (58), which functionally resembles the recycling
endosome in non-epithelial cells. Under normal conditions in fully
polarized hepatocytes, a GlcCer analog was recycled to the bile
canalicular surface and SM to the basolateral surface (see Ref. 57),
and evidence was provided for transient activation during polarity
development of a pathway for SM to the bile canalicular surface by
protein kinase A (59). Transcytosis of GalCer from the apical to the
basolateral membrane of enterocytes has been held responsible for
allowing the passage of human immunodeficiency virus across the
intestinal epithelium (see Ref. 60).
The exciting developments in the fields of sphingolipid-mediated
signal transduction and sphingolipid-mediated protein sorting have led
to a tremendous activity in the studies of sphingolipid organization,
especially the structural role of sphingolipids in membrane rafts. It
is now being realized that such rafts exist in most cellular membranes.
To fully grasp raft function, it will be necessary to identify and
characterize the different types of raft, to follow their fate in time,
and to understand the role of the various sphingolipids in their
structure. Although one important challenge will be to unravel the
biophysical complexity of lipid mixtures, it will be most important to
define the interactions between sphingolipids and proteins. These are
proteins involved in signaling but also proteins involved in vesicular
transport. Except for structural functions, sphingolipids serve
regulatory functions in their own right. Because sphingolipid functions
are governed by the enzymes that make, break, and transport the
sphingolipids, another major challenge will be to identify these
enzymes and establish how their activity is regulated in the living cell.
*
This minireview will be reprinted
in the 2002 Minireview Compendium, which
will be available in December, 2002. This work was supported by the Dr. Anton Meelmeijer
Program (AMC) (to Q. L.), European Community Research Training
Network on Sphingolipids Grant HPRN-CT-2000-00077, Zorgonderzoek
Nederland Medical Sciences (ZonMW), and the Ministry of Economic
Affairs (Senter) (to G. v. M.). This is the fourth article of five in
the "Sphingolipid Metabolism and Signaling Minireview Series."
Published, JBC Papers in Press, May 13, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.R200010200
The abbreviations used are:
ER, endoplasmic reticulum;
GalCer, galactosylceramide;
GlcCer, glucosylceramide;
LacCer, lactosylceramide;
SM, sphingomyelin;
TGN, trans-Golgi network;
GPI, glycosylphosphatidylinositol;
PI, phosphatidylinositol;
GM3, Neu5Ac
MINIREVIEW
Sphingolipid Transport: Rafts and Translocators*
and
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
INTRODUCTION
Biosynthetic Traffic and Lipid...
Sphingolipid/Cholesterol Rafts
Uptake into the Cell
Perspectives
REFERENCES
Sphingolipid content of plasma membranes
![]()
Biosynthetic Traffic and Lipid Translocators
TOP
INTRODUCTION
Biosynthetic Traffic and Lipid...
Sphingolipid/Cholesterol Rafts
Uptake into the Cell
Perspectives
REFERENCES

View larger version (24K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Sphingolipid synthesis and translocation in
the Golgi. Ceramide (Cer) from the cytosolic
surface of the ER is converted to GalCer in the ER lumen or transported
to the Golgi (G). The GlcCer synthase is found at two
locations in the hepatocyte Golgi by sucrose gradient centrifugation
(65). One peak colocalized with SM synthase, which was not relocated to
the ER by brefeldin A in these cells (7), and thus probably situated in
the trans-Golgi/TGN (13). Ceramide reaches the cis-Golgi by vesicular
transport whereas ER-TGN contacts allow ceramide transport by exchange.
These contacts have been suggested to be sites of general lipid
exchange (12), which also holds for similar contacts between ER and
mitochondria (M). GlcCer translocates toward the lumen of
the Golgi, where it is galactosylated to LacCer. LacCer is the
precursor for the various complex glycosphingolipid series. For
simplicity, the seven cisternae of the Golgi have been reduced to just
two.

View larger version (46K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Lateral segregation of lipids into
microdomains. A, the Golgi complex of epithelial cells
buds vesicles with at least three different lipid compositions: an
apical composition, characterized by high levels of complex
glycosphingolipids, SM, and cholesterol (a), a basolateral
composition, having a high content of cholesterol (b), and
an ER composition, with a low concentration of sphingolipids and
cholesterol and a high concentration of unsaturated
glycerophospholipids (34) (c). The three phases, displaying
different thicknesses, must be recognized by the respective budding
machineries in the cytosol, probably via membrane-spanning proteins.
The segregation into three phases may occur in one single Golgi
cisterna. B, caveolae. In an environment of
glycerophospholipids (green), sphingolipid/cholesterol
domains enriched in GPI proteins (blue) may contain
subdomains enriched in GM1 (red; Ref. 39), with lipid
domains enriched in caveolin and dually acylated kinases
(brown) oriented toward the cytosol.
![]()
Sphingolipid/Cholesterol Rafts
TOP
INTRODUCTION
Biosynthetic Traffic and Lipid...
Sphingolipid/Cholesterol Rafts
Uptake into the Cell
Perspectives
REFERENCES
![]()
Uptake into the Cell
TOP
INTRODUCTION
Biosynthetic Traffic and Lipid...
Sphingolipid/Cholesterol Rafts
Uptake into the Cell
Perspectives
REFERENCES

View larger version (28K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
Endocytotic recycling of sphingolipids.
Sphingolipids can be endocytosed via clathrin-dependent and
-independent pathways. From early endosomes (EE) they are
recycled to the plasma membrane or shuttled to the recycling endosome
(RE), the late endosome (LE), or the TGN.
Endosomes and Golgi are connected via a bidirectional vesicular route.
In epithelial cells, one leg of the system is connected to the apical
and one to the basolateral surface.
![]()
Perspectives
TOP
INTRODUCTION
Biosynthetic Traffic and Lipid...
Sphingolipid/Cholesterol Rafts
Uptake into the Cell
Perspectives
REFERENCES
![]()
FOOTNOTES
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 31-30-2533427;
Fax: 31-30-2522478; E-mail: g.vanmeer@chem.uu.nl.
![]()
ABBREVIATIONS
3Gal
4GlcCer;
GM1, Gal
3GalNAc
4(Neu5Ac
3)Gal
4GlcCer;
GD3, Neu5Ac
8Neu5Ac
3Gal
4GlcCer.
![]()
REFERENCES
TOP
INTRODUCTION
Biosynthetic Traffic and Lipid...
Sphingolipid/Cholesterol Rafts
Uptake into the Cell
Perspectives
REFERENCES
1.
Hakomori, S.
(1990)
J. Biol. Chem.
265,
18713-18716 2.
Simons, K.,
and van Meer, G.
(1988)
Biochemistry
27,
6197-6202[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
3.
Brown, D. A.,
and London, E.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
17221-17224 4.
Skrzypek, M. S.,
Nagiec, M. M.,
Lester, R. L.,
and Dickson, R. C.
(1999)
J. Bacteriol.
181,
1134-1140 5.
Zanolari, B.,
Friant, S.,
Funato, K.,
Sutterlin, C.,
Stevenson, B. J.,
and Riezman, H.
(2000)
EMBO J.
19,
2824-2833[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
6.
Levine, T. P.,
Wiggins, C. A.,
and Munro, S.
(2000)
Mol. Biol. Cell
11,
2267-2281 7.
van Meer, G.,
and Holthuis, J. C. M.
(2000)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
1486,
145-170[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
8.
Bai, J.,
and Pagano, R. E.
(1997)
Biochemistry
36,
8840-8848[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
9.
Yasuda, S.,
Kitagawa, H.,
Ueno, M.,
Ishitani, H.,
Fukasawa, M.,
Nishijima, M.,
Kobayashi, S.,
and Hanada, K.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
43994-44002 10.
Kok, J. W.,
Babia, T.,
Klappe, K.,
Egea, G.,
and Hoekstra, D.
(1998)
Biochem. J.
333,
779-786[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
11.
Funato, K.,
and Riezman, H.
(2001)
J. Cell Biol.
155,
949-959 12.
Marsh, B. J.,
Mastronarde, D. N.,
Buttle, K. F.,
Howell, K. E.,
and McIntosh, J. R.
(2001)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
98,
2399-2406 13.
Sadeghlar, F.,
Sandhoff, K.,
and van Echten-Deckert, G.
(2000)
FEBS Lett.
478,
9-12[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
14.
Lannert, H.,
Gorgas, K.,
Meissner, I.,
Wieland, F. T.,
and Jeckel, D.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
2939-2946 15.
Allende, M. L., Li, J.,
Darling, D. S.,
Worth, C. A.,
and Young, W. W., Jr.
(2000)
Glycobiology
10,
1025-1032 16.
Burger, K. N. J.,
van der Bijl, P.,
and van Meer, G.
(1996)
J. Cell Biol.
133,
15-28 17.
Lala, P.,
Ito, S.,
and Lingwood, C. A.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
6246-6251 18.
van Helvoort, A.,
Smith, A. J.,
Sprong, H.,
Fritzsche, I.,
Schinkel, A. H.,
Borst, P.,
and van Meer, G.
(1996)
Cell
87,
507-517[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
19.
Borst, P.,
Zelcer, N.,
and van Helvoort, A.
(2000)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
1486,
128-144[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
20.
Warnock, D. E.,
Lutz, M. S.,
Blackburn, W. A.,
Young, W. W., Jr.,
and Baenziger, J. U.
(1994)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
91,
2708-2712 21.
Lin, X.,
Mattjus, P.,
Pike, H. M.,
Windebank, A. J.,
and Brown, R. E.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
5104-5110 22.
van Meer, G.
(1989)
Annu. Rev. Cell Biol.
5,
247-275[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
23.
Young, W. W., Jr.,
Lutz, M. S.,
and Blackburn, W. A.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
12011-12015 24.
Hechtberger, P.,
and Daum, G.
(1995)
FEBS Lett.
367,
201-204[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
25.
van Meer, G.,
Stelzer, E. H. K.,
Wijnaendts-van-Resandt, R. W.,
and Simons, K.
(1987)
J. Cell Biol.
105,
1623-1635 26.
Brügger, B.,
Sandhoff, R.,
Wegehingel, S.,
Gorgas, K.,
Malsam, J.,
Helms, J. B.,
Lehmann, W. D.,
Nickel, W.,
and Wieland, F. T.
(2000)
J. Cell Biol.
151,
507-518 27.
Gkantiragas, I.,
Brugger, B.,
Stuven, E.,
Kaloyanova, D., Li, X. Y.,
Lohr, K.,
Lottspeich, F.,
Wieland, F. T.,
and Helms, J. B.
(2001)
Mol. Biol. Cell
12,
1819-1833 28.
Bagnat, M.,
Keranen, S.,
Shevchenko, A.,
and Simons, K.
(2000)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
97,
3254-3259 29.
Schütz, G. J.,
Kada, G.,
Pastushenko, V. P.,
and Schindler, H.
(2000)
EMBO J.
19,
892-901[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
30.
Suzuki, K.,
Sterba, R. E.,
and Sheetz, M. P.
(2000)
Biophys. J.
79,
448-459 31.
Mayor, S.,
and Maxfield, F. R.
(1995)
Mol. Biol. Cell
6,
929-944[Abstract]
32.
Hao, M.,
Mukherjee, S.,
and Maxfield, F. R.
(2001)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
98,
13072-13077 33.
Dietrich, C.,
Volovyk, Z. N.,
Levi, M.,
Thompson, N. L.,
and Jacobson, K.
(2001)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
98,
10642-10647 34.
Keenan, T. W.,
and Morré, D. J.
(1970)
Biochemistry
9,
19-25[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
35.
Schneiter, R.,
Brugger, B.,
Sandhoff, R.,
Zellnig, G.,
Leber, A.,
Lampl, M.,
Athenstaedt, K.,
Hrastnik, C.,
Eder, S.,
Daum, G.,
Paltauf, F.,
Wieland, F. T.,
and Kohlwein, S. D.
(1999)
J. Cell Biol.
146,
741-754 36.
Dietrich, C.,
Bagatolli, L. A.,
Volovyk, Z. N.,
Thompson, N. L.,
Levi, M.,
Jacobson, K.,
and Gratton, E.
(2001)
Biophys. J.
80,
1417-1428 37.
Gómez-Moutón, C.,
Abad, J. L.,
Mira, E.,
Lacalle, R. A.,
Gallardo, E.,
Jiménez-Baranda, S.,
Illa, I.,
Bernad, A.,
Mañes, S.,
and Martinez-A, C.
(2001)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
98,
9642-9647 38.
Vyas, K. A.,
Patel, H. V.,
Vyas, A. A.,
and Schnaar, R. L.
(2001)
Biol. Chem.
382,
241-250[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
39.
Schnitzer, J. E.,
McIntosh, D. P.,
Dvorak, A. M.,
Liu, J.,
and Oh, P.
(1995)
Science
269,
1435-1439 40.
Yuan, C.,
and Johnston, L. J.
(2001)
Biophys. J.
81,
1059-1069 41.
Bretscher, M. S.,
and Munro, S.
(1993)
Science
261,
1280-1281 42.
Sprong, H.,
van der Sluijs, P.,
and van Meer, G.
(2001)
Nature Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol.
2,
504-513[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
43.
Melkonian, K. A.,
Ostermeyer, A. G.,
Chen, J. Z.,
Roth, M. G.,
and Brown, D. A.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
3910-3917 44.
Tepper, A. D.,
Ruurs, P.,
Wiedmer, T.,
Sims, P. J.,
Borst, J.,
and van Blitterswijk, W. J.
(2000)
J. Cell Biol.
150,
155-164 45.
Veldman, R. J.,
Maestre, N.,
Aduib, O. M.,
Medin, J. A.,
Salvayre, R.,
and Levade, T.
(2001)
Biochem. J.
355,
859-868[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
46.
van Tiel, C. M.,
Luberto, C.,
Snoek, G. T.,
Hannun, Y. A.,
and Wirtz, K. W.
(2000)
Biochem. J.
346,
537-543[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
47.
Chatelut, M.,
Leruth, M.,
Harzer, K.,
Dagan, A.,
Marchesini, S.,
Gatt, S.,
Salvayre, R.,
Courtoy, P.,
and Levade, T.
(1998)
FEBS Lett.
426,
102-106[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
48.
Boujaoude, L. C.,
Bradshaw-Wilder, C.,
Mao, C.,
Cohn, J.,
Ogretmen, B.,
Hannun, Y. A.,
and Obeid, L. M.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
35258-35264 49.
Sprong, H.,
Degroote, S.,
Claessens, T.,
van Drunen, J.,
Oorschot, V.,
Westerink, B. H.,
Hirabayashi, Y.,
Klumperman, J.,
van der Sluijs, P.,
and van Meer, G.
(2001)
J. Cell Biol.
155,
369-380 50.
Hoekstra, D.,
and van Ijzendoorn, S. C.
(2000)
Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.
12,
496-502[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
51.
Higashi, H.,
and Yamagata, T.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
9839-9843 52.
Rippo, M. R.,
Malisan, F.,
Ravagnan, L.,
Tomassini, B.,
Condo, I.,
Costantini, P.,
Susin, S. A.,
Rufini, A.,
Todaro, M.,
Kroemer, G.,
and Testi, R.
(2000)
FASEB J.
14,
2047-2054 53.
van Genderen, I. L.,
van Meer, G.,
Slot, J. W.,
Geuze, H. J.,
and Voorhout, W. F.
(1991)
J. Cell Biol.
115,
1009-1019 54.
Möbius, W.,
Herzog, V.,
Sandhoff, K.,
and Schwarzmann, G.
(1999)
J. Histochem. Cytochem.
47,
1005-1014 55.
Nichols, B. J.,
Kenworthy, A. K.,
Polishchuk, R. S.,
Lodge, R.,
Roberts, T. H.,
Hirschberg, K.,
Phair, R. D.,
and Lippincott-Schwartz, J.
(2001)
J. Cell Biol.
153,
529-541 56.
Puri, V.,
Watanabe, R.,
Singh, R. D.,
Dominguez, M.,
Brown, J. C.,
Wheatley, C. L.,
Marks, D. L.,
and Pagano, R. E.
(2001)
J. Cell Biol.
154,
535-548 57.
van IJzendoorn, S. C. D.,
and Hoekstra, D.
(1999)
Mol. Biol. Cell
10,
3449-3461 58.
Gagescu, R.,
Demaurex, N.,
Parton, R. G.,
Hunziker, W.,
Huber, L. A.,
and Gruenberg, J.
(2000)
Mol. Biol. Cell
11,
2775-2791 59.
van Ijzendoorn, S. C.,
and Hoekstra, D.
(2000)
Mol. Biol. Cell
11,
1093-1101 60.
Alfsen, A.,
Iniguez, P.,
Bouguyon, E.,
and Bomsel, M.
(2001)
J. Immunol.
166,
6257-6265 61.
Lange, Y.,
Swaisgood, M. H.,
Ramos, B. V.,
and Steck, T. L.
(1989)
J. Biol. Chem.
264,
3786-3793 62.
Kawai, K.,
Fujita, M.,
and Nakao, M.
(1974)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
369,
222-233[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
63.
Morell, P.,
Quarles, R. H.,
and Norton, W. T.
(1994)
in
Basic Neurochemistry. Molecular, Cellular, and Medical Aspects
(Siegel, G. J.
, Agranoff, B. W.
, Albers, R. W.
, and Molinoff, P. B., eds), 4th Ed.
, pp. 117-143, Raven Press, New York
64.
Patton, J. L.,
and Lester, R. L.
(1991)
J. Bacteriol.
173,
3101-3108 65.
Jeckel, D.,
Karrenbauer, A.,
Burger, K. N. J.,
van Meer, G.,
and Wieland, F.
(1992)
J. Cell Biol.
117,
259-267 66.
Hannun, Y. A.,
and Obeid, L. M.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
25847-25850 67.
Spiegel, S.,
and Milstien, S.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
25851-25854 68.
Merrill, A. H., Jr.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
25843-25846 69.
Kolter, T.,
Proia, R. L.,
and Sandhoff, K.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
25859-25862
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:
![]() |
L. K. Hein, S. Duplock, J. J. Hopwood, and M. Fuller Lipid composition of microdomains is altered in a cell model of Gaucher disease J. Lipid Res., August 1, 2008; 49(8): 1725 - 1734. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Stiban, L. Caputo, and M. Colombini Ceramide synthesis in the endoplasmic reticulum can permeabilize mitochondria to proapoptotic proteins J. Lipid Res., March 1, 2008; 49(3): 625 - 634. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Fridberg, C. L. Olson, E. S. Nakayasu, K. M. Tyler, I. C. Almeida, and D. M. Engman Sphingolipid synthesis is necessary for kinetoplast segregation and cytokinesis in Trypanosoma brucei J. Cell Sci., February 15, 2008; 121(4): 522 - 535. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. S. Don, C. Martinez-Lamenca, W. R. Webb, R. L. Proia, E. Roberts, and H. Rosen Essential Requirement for Sphingosine Kinase 2 in a Sphingolipid Apoptosis Pathway Activated by FTY720 Analogues J. Biol. Chem., May 25, 2007; 282(21): 15833 - 15842. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. S. Sutterwala, C. H. Creswell, S. Sanyal, A. K. Menon, and J. D. Bangs De Novo Sphingolipid Synthesis Is Essential for Viability, but Not for Transport of Glycosylphosphatidylinositol-Anchored Proteins, in African Trypanosomes Eukaryot. Cell, March 1, 2007; 6(3): 454 - 464. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Mebarek, H. Komati, F. Naro, C. Zeiller, M. Alvisi, M. Lagarde, A.-F. Prigent, and G. Nemoz Inhibition of de novo ceramide synthesis upregulates phospholipase D and enhances myogenic differentiation J. Cell Sci., February 1, 2007; 120(3): 407 - 416. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Mitra, C. A. Oskeritzian, S. G. Payne, M. A. Beaven, S. Milstien, and S. Spiegel Role of ABCC1 in export of sphingosine-1-phosphate from mast cells PNAS, October 31, 2006; 103(44): 16394 - 16399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Yamamoto, N. Yamamoto, M. W. Petroll, J. V. Jester, and H. D. Cavanagh Regulation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Internalization after Contact Lens Wear In Vivo and in Serum-Free Culture by Ocular Surface Cells. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., August 1, 2006; 47(8): 3430 - 3440. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. T. Browman, M. E. Resek, L. D. Zajchowski, and S. M. Robbins Erlin-1 and erlin-2 are novel members of the prohibitin family of proteins that define lipid-raft-like domains of the ER J. Cell Sci., August 1, 2006; 119(15): 3149 - 3160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. Lopez-Montero, N. Rodriguez, S. Cribier, A. Pohl, M. Velez, and P. F. Devaux Rapid Transbilayer Movement of Ceramides in Phospholipid Vesicles and in Human Erythrocytes J. Biol. Chem., July 8, 2005; 280(27): 25811 - 25819. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Malewicz, J. T. Valiyaveettil, K. Jacob, H.-S. Byun, P. Mattjus, W. J. Baumann, R. Bittman, and R. E. Brown The 3-Hydroxy Group and 4,5-trans Double Bond of Sphingomyelin Are Essential for Modulation of Galactosylceramide Transmembrane Asymmetry Biophys. J., April 1, 2005; 88(4): 2670 - 2680. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Fleischer, A. Ghadiri, F. Dessauge, M. Duhamel, X. Cayla, A. Garcia, and A. Rebollo Bad-Dependent Rafts Alteration Is a Consequence of an Early Intracellular Signal Triggered by Interleukin-4 Deprivation Mol. Cancer Res., December 1, 2004; 2(12): 674 - 684. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. E. Modrak, T. M. Cardillo, G. A. Newsome, D. M. Goldenberg, and D. V. Gold Synergistic Interaction between Sphingomyelin and Gemcitabine Potentiates Ceramide-Mediated Apoptosis in Pancreatic Cancer Cancer Res., November 15, 2004; 64(22): 8405 - 8410. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. M. Crespo, R. Iglesias-Bartolome, and J. L. Daniotti Ganglioside GD3 Traffics from the trans-Golgi Network to Plasma Membrane by a Rab11-independent and Brefeldin A-insensitive Exocytic Pathway J. Biol. Chem., November 12, 2004; 279(46): 47610 - 47618. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Bode, C. Beermann, M. Mank, G. Kohn, and G. Boehm Human and Bovine Milk Gangliosides Differ in Their Fatty Acid Composition J. Nutr., November 1, 2004; 134(11): 3016 - 3020. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||