|
Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M111706200 on May 30, 2002
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 32, 28948-28958, August 9, 2002
Cysteine String Protein Interacts with and Modulates the
Maturation of the Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance
Regulator*
Hui
Zhang,
Kathryn W.
Peters,
Fei
Sun,
Christopher R.
Marino ,
Jochen
Lang§,
Robert D.
Burgoyne¶, and
Raymond A.
Frizzell
From the Department of Cell Biology and Physiology,
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15261, the Department of Medicine,
University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee 38163, the
§ Institut Européen de Chimie et Biologie, Pessac
F-33607, France, and the ¶ Physiological Laboratory,
University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, United Kingdom
Received for publication, December 7, 2001, and in revised form, May 1, 2002
 |
ABSTRACT |
The cystic fibrosis
transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) is a cAMP-regulated
chloride channel whose phosphorylation regulates both channel
gating and its trafficking at the plasma membrane. Cysteine string
proteins (Csps) are J-domain-containing, membrane-associated proteins
that have been functionally implicated in regulated exocytosis.
Therefore, we evaluated the possibility that Csp is involved in
regulated CFTR trafficking. We found Csp expressed in mammalian
epithelial cell lines, several of which express CFTR. In Calu-3 airway
cells, immunofluorescence colocalized Csp with calnexin in the
endoplasmic reticulum and with CFTR at the apical membrane domain. CFTR
coprecipitated with Csp from Calu-3 cell lysates. Csp associated with
both core-glycosylated immature and fully glycosylated mature CFTRs
(bands B and C); however, in relation to the endogenous levels of the B
and C bands expressed in Calu-3 cells, the Csp interaction with band B
predominated. In vitro protein binding assays detected
physical interactions of both mammalian Csp isoforms with the CFTR
R-domain and the N terminus, having submicromolar affinities. In
Xenopus oocytes expressing CFTR, Csp overexpression
decreased the chloride current and membrane capacitance increases
evoked by cAMP stimulation and decreased the levels of CFTR protein
detected by immunoblot. In mammalian cells, the steady-state expression
of CFTR band C was eliminated, and pulse-chase studies showed that Csp
coexpression blocked the conversion of immature to mature CFTR and
stabilized band B. These results demonstrate a primary role for Csp in
CFTR protein maturation. The physical interaction of this Hsc70-binding protein with immature CFTR, its localization in the endoplasmic reticulum, and the decrease in production of mature CFTR observed during Csp overexpression reflect a role for Csp in CFTR biogenesis. The documented role of Csp in regulated exocytosis, its interaction with mature CFTR, and its coexpression with CFTR at the apical membrane
domain of epithelial cells may reflect also a role for Csp in regulated
CFTR trafficking at the plasma membrane.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator
(CFTR)1 is responsible for
the cAMP-activated chloride conductance of epithelial cell apical
membranes (1). Mutations in the CFTR gene cause cystic fibrosis,
whereas hyperactivity of this transport pathway produces secretory
diarrhea. The folding of CFTR is energetically complex; misfolding and
degradation of the protein are features of the most common CFTR
mutation ( F508) (2, 3). In addition, F508 CFTR is unable to
undergo ATP-dependent conformational changes in the ER that
are required for its proper folding. When CFTR folding is retarded in
the ER, the protein becomes a target for proteolysis by ER-associated
degradation mechanisms that police the protein secretory pathway
for misfolded or incompletely complexed proteins (4). This degradation
involves ubiquitination of the aberrant protein and its delivery to the
proteasome (5, 6). Nearly all of the F508 CFTR produced by the cell
is destroyed in this manner; and because of its complex folding
pattern, much of the wild-type protein is also degraded. The mechanisms
that govern CFTR folding/degradation processes are facilitated by
chaperone and co-chaperone protein interactions (discussed further below).
The primary step in CFTR activation involves cAMP/protein kinase
A-mediated phosphorylation of its central regulatory (R) domain, which
not only permits the channel to gate, but also alters pathways for CFTR
trafficking at the plasma membrane (7). In recent years, protein
interactions at several CFTR domains have been implicated in channel
function and trafficking. The N-terminal cytosolic tail of CFTR is a
site of syntaxin 1A binding (8), and syntaxin 1A overexpression is
thought to inhibit CFTR currents by reducing channel gating (9) and by
interfering with regulated CFTR trafficking to the plasma membrane
(10). A motif promoting CFTR endocytosis has been identified at the C
terminus, and this region interacts physically with the plasma membrane
endocytic adapter (AP-2) complex (11, 12). The C terminus of CFTR
corresponds to a PDZ (PSD-95/Disc-large/ZO-1) binding motif, which
interacts with ezrin radixin moesin-binding phosphoprotein 50 or E3KARP to bring ezrin into proximity with CFTR (13, 14). Ezrin can anchor
protein kinase A at a position physiologically appropriate for CFTR
phosphorylation (15, 16), and ezrin interactions with the cytoskeleton
permit retention of CFTR at the apical membrane as a mechanism to
establish its polarity in epithelial cells (17). Here, we report the
interaction of CFTR with another multidomain protein, the cysteine
string protein (Csp).
The Csps were first discovered in Drosophila and
Torpedo (18, 19), and their expression has now been
documented in a variety of tissues from several mammalian species (20,
21). Csp null mutants in Drosophila produce a
temperature-sensitive block of synaptic transmission followed by
paralysis and premature death. These findings demonstrate a crucial
role for Csp in neurosecretion (22). In neurons, Csp is associated
predominantly with synaptic vesicles (19), and in secretory cells it is
found in large dense core or secretory granules (23, 24). Studies of
membrane dye labeling (25) and neurotransmitter release (26, 27)
indicated that Csp knockouts exhibit defective neurotransmitter
exocytosis; presynaptic endocytosis and vesicle recycling appear to be
intact. Studies in neuroendocrine (28) and endocrine cells (24) have confirmed that altered Csp expression elicits an impaired secretory phenotype.
Csps contain an N-terminal "J-domain," a central cysteine-rich
"string" region, and a phylogenetically more variable C-terminal domain. The J-domains of Csps are structurally conserved among different species, and this region provides a fingerprint of Csp as a
member of the DnaJ/Hsp40 (heat shock protein) chaperone family. As
observed for other chaperone proteins (29), the HPD motif of the Csp
J-domain mediates its binding to and activation of the Hsc70 chaperone
ATPases, which influence protein conformation/binding. Structural
predictions indicate that the C terminus of Csp1 may form a coiled-coil
region, and this structure may be important in view of the emerging
evidence that Csp can interact with proteins involved in exocytosis,
such as vesicle-associated membrane protein and syntaxins 1A and 4 (21,
30, 31). Thus, prior results suggest that Csp could link functions of
the SNARE complex with those of Hsc70. The concept that assembly of the
core fusion complex requires chaperone activity has been raised
previously (21); however, the explicit roles of Csp and Hsc70 in the
assembly or disassembly of SNARE components are not yet known. The C
terminus of Csp contains the only primary structural difference that
exists between the mammalian isoforms: full-length Csp1, and its
C-terminal truncated variant, Csp2 (32, 33).
Csp expression in epithelial cells has not been characterized
previously. We found that various mammalian epithelial cell lines
express two Csp isoforms and that the expression of Csp1 predominated
over that of Csp2. In Calu-3 airway epithelial cells, Csp partially
colocalized with CFTR in the ER and apical plasma membrane domains. Csp
coprecipitated with CFTR from Calu-3 cell lysates and bound selectively
to the N terminus and R-domain of CFTR with high affinity. Coexpression
of Csp isoforms with CFTR inhibited the functional responses associated
with its cAMP stimulation, and exogenous Csp expression decreased the
production of mature CFTR. These findings suggest that Csp is a
CFTR-binding partner that can influence the biogenesis and trafficking
of CFTR.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Materials and Reagents--
Protein A/G-agarose beads and
Taq polymerase were purchased from Invitrogen.
Glutathione-Sepharose 4B was purchased from Amersham Biosciences. DNA
restriction endonucleases were from New England BioLabs. DNA
purification kits were obtained from Qiagen. Csp1 and Csp2 cDNAs
were subcloned into pcDNA3 with an N-terminal Myc tag (34). Mouse
hippocampus neuronal cell (SY5S) lysate, employed as a Csp protein
positive control, was kindly provided by Dr. Chaohua Yan (Children's
Hospital, Pittsburgh). Protein kinase A and other reagent grade
chemicals were purchased from Sigma.
Antibodies--
Anti-Csp serum was raised in rabbits against
recombinant bovine Csp1 (32). Monoclonal anti-GST and anti-Golgi 58K
antibodies were purchased from Sigma. Anti-CFTR polyclonal antibodies
(R3195) were generated and affinity purified as described (35).
Anti-CFTR (mAb3484 and mAb3482) and anti-Csp monoclonal antibodies were obtained from Chemicon. Horseradish peroxidase-conjugated anti-rabbit IgG and anti-mouse IgG were obtained from Sigma. Monoclonal
anti-calnexin antibodies were obtained from Affinity Bioreagents.
Cell Culture--
Calu-3 and T84 cells were cultured as
described by Sun et al. (14). CFPAC-1 cells were grown in
Iscove's essential medium (Biofluids) containing 5% fetal bovine
serum, 4 mM L-glutamine, and
penicillin-streptomycin (Invitrogen). Madin-Darby canine kidney and
HEK293 cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium
(Sigma) with 10% fetal bovine serum, 4 mM
L-glutamine, and penicillin-streptomycin.
Xenopus kidney-derived A6 epithelial cells were cultured as
described previously (36).
Reverse Transcription-PCR--
Total RNAs were prepared from the
indicated cell lines by use of Trizol buffer (Invitrogen), and
cDNAs were synthesized using reverse transcriptase and a
dT15 primer. PCRs were performed as described (24). The
following primers were used:
5'-ATTAGGATCCatggcagaccagagacagc (sense for human Csp;
BamHI restriction site underlined),
5'-ACGAATTCTTAGTTGAACCCGTCAGTGTG (antisense for human Csp;
EcoRI restriction site underlined), 5'-ATTAGGATCCATGGCAGATCAGCGGCAGC (sense for
Xenopus Csp), and 5'-ACGAATTCTCAGTTGAATCCATCGGTGTG (antisense for
Xenopus Csp). PCR products from Calu-3 and A6 cells were
cloned into the pCRII vector using the TOPO cloning reaction and
transformation kit (Invitrogen) for sequencing.
Western Blotting--
Crude membranes from various epithelial
cell lines or oocytes were prepared as described by Lang et
al. (37). To prepare crude membrane extracts, epithelial cells
were detached by incubation for 5 min at 37 °C with 1× trypsin, and
after two washes in ice-cold phosphate-buffered saline, cells were
resuspended in ice-cold homogenization buffer (5 mM HEPES,
pH 7.4, 250 mM sucrose, 1 mM EGTA, 10 µg/ml
leupeptin, 2 µg/ml aprotinin), sonicated, and centrifuged at
100,000 × g for 60 min. Crude membranes were recovered
and incubated with 0.5% Triton X-100 at 4 °C for 1 h and then
centrifuged at 16,000 × g for 1 h. The
supernatant was collected and stored for analysis. 50 µg of membrane
extract was separated on 12% SDS-PAGE minigels and transferred to
polyvinylidene difluoride membranes. Blots were probed with a
1:2,000 dilution of Csp or CFTR antiserum. For vesicular stomatitis
virus glycoprotein (VSV-G) detection, blots were probed with a
polyclonal antibody at 1:5000 dilution.
Immunofluorescence--
Calu-3 cell labeling was performed as
described previously (14). Cells were seeded on filters (Costar
Transwell) 2-3 weeks before use. After washing away apical secretions,
cells were fixed (4% paraformaldehyde) and permeabilized (0.1% Triton
X-100). Filters were mounted on glass coverslips, and images were
obtained using a Leica TCS-NT confocal microscope as described
(14).
Plasmid Constructs and GST Fusion Protein
Expression--
Wild-type Csp1 and Csp2 were subcloned into pGEX-6p-1.
cDNAs encoding GST-CFTR R-domain (GST-R), GST-CFTR N terminus
(GST-N) and GST-CFTR C terminus (GST-C) were described previously (15). GST-CFTR-N random was constructed as GST-N, except for a one-nucleotide shift in the reading frame, which yields a different amino acid composition; its net charge and size are comparable with CFTR-N. Purification and dialysis of GST fusion proteins were performed as
described by Sun et al. (15).
Pull-down Assays and Coimmunoprecipitation--
10 µg of GST
fusion protein was incubated with 20 µl of preequilibrated
glutathione-Sepharose 4B beads in 200 µl of DIGNAM-D buffer
containing 0.1% bovine serum albumin at 4 °C for 1 h (38). Calu-3 membrane fractions were added, and the incubation continued for
an additional 2 h at 4 °C. After five washes with DIGNAM-D buffer, samples were resuspended in 30 µl of 2× SDS sample buffer, boiled for 2 min, resolved on 12% SDS-PAGE, and probed with anti-Csp antibodies (1:2,000). Coimmunoprecipitation was performed as described by Sun et al. (14). 10% of the protein extract employed in
the immunoprecipitation was loaded for subsequent immunoblot.
In Vitro Binding and Competition Assays--
In vitro
binding assays were performed as described by Sun et
al. (15), and in vitro competition assays were
performed as described by Sun et al. (15) with
modifications. Briefly, 10 µg of GST-CFTR-R or GST-CFTR-N fusion
protein was immobilized on glutathione beads and incubated with
106 cpm of 35S-labeled Csp1 or Csp2 in the
presence of the indicated concentrations of unlabeled Csp1 or Csp2.
After five washes, samples were resuspended in SDS sample buffer and
signals visualized by autoradiography.
Transient Transfections--
HEK293 cells grown in 60-mm dishes
were transiently transfected using LipofectAMINE (Invitrogen) with the
indicated pcDNA3 or pcDNA3.1 expression plasmids, 4 µg of
cDNA/dish. After 24 h, the cells were rinsed with
phosphate-buffered saline and either prepared for pulse-chase assays or
lysed in RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4, 150 mM NaCl, 1% Triton X-100, 1% sodium deoxycholate, 0.1%
SDS) or Nonidet P-40 lysis buffer (0.09% Nonidet 40, 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4, 150 mM NaCl and 10 mM
NaMoO4). Samples were incubated for 2 h in the
appropriate lysis buffer and centrifuged at 16,000 × g
for 30 min at 4 °C. Cell extracts were utilized for immunoblot
analysis (see figure legends).
Pulse-Chase Assays--
Metabolic labeling and
immunoprecipitation of CFTR were performed using methods described
previously (39, 40), with modifications. Transfected HEK293 cells were
starved in methionine- and cysteine-free Dulbecco's modified Eagle's
medium for 30 min, and then metabolically labeled with Redivue Pro-mix
L-35S (140 µCi/ml; Amersham Biosciences) for
30 min at 37 °C. Cells were washed twice with phosphate-buffered
saline and lysed immediately or incubated in complete Dulbecco's
modified Eagle's medium for the indicated chase periods. Cell lysates
were precleared with protein A-agarose, and immunoprecipitation was
performed as described (40) using M3A7 anti-CFTR, kindly supplied by
Dr. John R. Riordan. Immunoprecipitates were analyzed using 7%
SDS-PAGE and autoradiography.
Electrophysiology--
CFTR, Csp1, and Csp2 cRNAs were
synthesized using the mMessage mMachine kit (Ambion) from linearized
plasmids. The quality of synthesized cRNA was determined by
spectrophotometry and agarose gel electrophoresis. Oocyte preparation
and cRNA injections were carried out as described by Takahashi et
al. (41). Expression proceeded for 2-6 days before current and
capacitance recordings, which were performed as described (10, 41). All
data are provided as the mean ± S.E.
 |
RESULTS |
Csp Is Expressed in Epithelial Cells--
Immunoblotting was
performed to determine whether Csp is expressed in several epithelial
cell lines. Crude membrane extracts from the mammalian cells HEK293,
Madin-Darby canine kidney (type 2), CFPAC-1, Calu-3, and T84, and from
the Xenopus A6 cell line were resolved on 12% SDS-PAGE and
probed with an anti-Csp antiserum that does not distinguish between Csp
isoforms (32). As a positive control, membranes from the SY5Y human
neuronal (hippocampal) cell line were applied to the gel. As shown in
Fig. 1A, all of the mammalian
epithelial cells examined expressed two Csp isoforms. The upper
bands in Fig. 1A are appropriate in size for Csp1
(33-35 kDa), whereas the lower bands in mammalian cells correspond to the size expected for Csp2 (26-28 kDa); this isoform was uniformly less abundant. In contrast, A6 cells expressed only one Csp isoform. It
is more closely related to Csp1 than Csp2 (33), although its
molecular size is slightly smaller than the Csp1 in mammalian cells.
The Csp antiserum also recognized in vitro synthesized Csp1
and Csp2 (data not shown).

View larger version (46K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Csps are expressed in various epithelial cell
lines. Panel A, homogenates (15 µg of protein) from the
indicated cell lines were probed with Csp antiserum. Panel
B, reverse transcription-PCR was performed as described under
"Experimental Procedures." No cDNA was added in the PCR
designated Control.
|
|
To confirm the expression of Csp isoforms in these cells, reverse
transcription-PCR was employed, and the results are shown in Fig.
1B. The sizes of the PCR products were as expected for the
cDNAs encoding Csp1 and Csp2. These products are not derived from
contaminating DNA because the primers employed span Csp exons. Csp2
protein is truncated relative to Csp1 because of the insertion of a
stop codon-containing RNA splice fragment (32); this accounts for the
smaller size of the Csp2 protein but its larger cDNA and PCR
product (Fig. 1B). Although the PCR results are not
quantitative, the Csp amplicon ratios from different cell lines
generally agreed with the pattern of isoform expression observed by
immunoblot. As with the protein analysis, Csp isoforms were expressed
at lower levels in T84 cells. Only one isoform of Csp was detected in
A6 cells, in accord with the protein data (Fig. 1A) and
information in the data base. Sequencing of these PCR products
confirmed the expression of Csp1 and 2 in Calu-3 cells, and of the
single isoform (33) reported in Xenopus A6 epithelia (data
not shown).
Csps Are Partially Colocalized with CFTR at the ER and Apical
Membranes--
In non-epithelial cells, Csps are membrane-associated
and are localized predominantly on large dense core vesicles or
synaptic-like microvesicles (22-24, 42, 43). A small fraction of Csp
is located on the plasma membranes of neurons, neuroendocrine or
endocrine cells. Large dense core vesicles are present in epithelial
cells having defined secretory products (e.g. pancreatic
acinar cells), but Csp distribution in epithelial cells has not been
defined previously.
To examine the subcellular distribution of Csps in airway epithelial
cells, immunofluorescent staining was performed in polarized Calu-3
cells and visualized using confocal microscopy. Sections taken at
various cell depths (Fig. 2,
A-D) showed a predominantly punctate and vesicular distribution pattern for Csp (green
fluorescence). Csp and CFTR (red fluorescence) colocalized
in the most apical sections, as indicated by the yellow staining
pattern of Fig. 2A. As seen in the xz scan (Fig.
2E), a fraction of Csp colocalized with CFTR at the apical
region of some cells, but the apex of other cells showed little
apparent colocalization. Although Csp colocalized with CFTR in apical
membrane compartments, significant fractions of both proteins showed no
apparent overlap by immunofluorescence in their steady-state cellular
distributions (Fig. 2). This is partly because of the presence of Csp
in what appear to be large secretory granules that lack CFTR (44).
These granules are likely to contain the secretory products
characteristic of airway submucosal gland serous cells, which Calu-3
cells express (e.g. mucins, microbial defense substances and
protease inhibitors) (45). CFTR was not detected in their membranes
(Fig. 2), in contrast to the localization of CFTR found in the mucin
granules of canine gallbladder cells (46). This observation suggests
that Csp may play a CFTR-independent role in secretory granule
exocytosis from Calu-3 cells, and this possibility will require further
study.

View larger version (70K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Colocalization of Csp with CFTR or
with calnexin in Calu-3 cells. Calu-3 cells were labeled with
polyclonal Csp antiserum and monoclonal CFTR R-domain or calnexin
antibodies. Labeling was detected by Alexa488 (green
indicating Csp) or Alexa568 (red indicating CFTR in
panels A-E or calnexin in panel F). Serial
images in the xy plane were collected every 0.5 µm through the
specimen depth; xy images (panels A-D), taken from cell
apex to base, are separated by 2.5 µm. Panel E shows the
xz scan of the region indicated in panel A. Scale
bar, 10 µm. Images were collected by confocal microscopy and
analyzed using Metamorph (Universal Imaging) software.
|
|
Fig. 2F, taken at the nuclear level, shows that Csp
(green) was partially colocalized with calnexin
(red), an ER marker. Preliminary analysis of Calu-3 cells by
sucrose density gradient centrifugation was consistent also with the
colocalization of these proteins because Csp was found in fractions
containing the ER marker
calnexin.2 The results
suggest that a fraction of Csp is colocalized with CFTR at both the ER
and the apical membrane domain of Calu-3 epithelia.
Interaction of CFTR with Csp--
To determine whether a physical
interaction between Csp and CFTR could be detected in vivo,
we performed coimmunoprecipitation experiments (Fig.
3). In these studies, the initial
precipitation was performed with either Csp antiserum or with
antibodies against the first nucleotide binding domain (NBD1) of CFTR.
As shown in Fig. 3A (lane 3), Csp antibody
coimmunoprecipitated the mature, glycosylated CFTR (band C,
upper) as well as the immature, core-glycosylated CFTR (band
B, lower) from Calu-3 cell extracts. As a negative control,
no CFTR was precipitated by a nonimmune IgG (lane 2). As a
control for the coimmunoprecipitation, we performed direct CFTR
immunoblotting on the same Calu-3 membrane preparations (Fig. 3A, lane 1). Both CFTR bands were present, but
the ratio of the B and C bands found in the Csp immunoprecipitation
differs from that constitutively expressed. Together with the results
from the cellular localization experiments, the immunoprecipitation results suggest that in the steady state, Csp interacts with both the
immature, core-glycosylated form of CFTR in the ER and with mature,
fully glycosylated CFTR at the apical membrane domain. As shown in Fig.
3B, a CFTR NBD1 antibody coprecipitated Csp from Calu-3
membranes (see positive control, Calu-3 cell lysate, lane 1). An N-terminal CFTR antibody did not precipitate significant Csp (data not shown). The lower band denoted Csp in panel B
likely represents deacylated Csp, produced by the coimmunoprecipitation conditions, which include overnight incubation with detergent, as noted
by others (47). This lower band is not observed under the conditions
used for immunoblotting (Fig. 1). As a negative control, Csp
did not coprecipitate with a GST antibody (Fig. 3B, lane 2). The absence of Csp coprecipitation by
anti-CFTR-N could represent a problem of antibody affinity, or it may
reflect impaired antibody access to its epitope at the N terminus
of CFTR.

View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Coimmunoprecipitation of Csp and CFTR.
Calu-3 membrane extract was mixed with Csp or CFTR antibody and
precipitated as described under "Experimental Procedures."
Immunoblots were probed with anti-CFTR (1:2,000, panel A) or
anti-Csp antibodies (1:2,000, panel B). Calu-3 cell membrane
extract was loaded as a positive control (panels A and
B, lanes 1). Antibodies used for
immunoprecipitation were nonimmune IgG and anti-Csp (panel
A, lanes 2 and 3) and anti-GST and
anti-CFTR-NBD1 (panel B, lanes 2 and
3). The lower band denoted Csp in
panel B likely represents deacylated Csp, produced by the
coimmunoprecipitation conditions, which include overnight incubation
with detergent. This outcome was noted by others (43, 47).
Hc indicates antibody heavy chain.
|
|
Csp Interacts with the R-domain and N Terminus of CFTR--
The
results from coimmunoprecipitation experiments indicate that CFTR and
Csp interact in vivo. To evaluate CFTR domain interactions with Csp, we performed pull-down experiments in which GST or GST-CFTR fusion proteins were bound to glutathione-Sepharose beads and incubated
with Calu-3 or CFTR-expressing HEK293 membrane extracts. Protein
complexes were washed, resolved on SDS-PAGE, and immunoblotting was
performed using Csp antibodies. To verify that comparable amounts of
GST or GST fusion proteins were applied in these assays, the Western
blots were subsequently stained with Coomassie Blue. The similar
amounts of fusion proteins present are illustrated in Fig.
4A. As seen in Fig.
4B, both the CFTR R-domain and the N terminus showed
significant interactions with Csp. A weak interaction between CFTR-C
and Csp was detected here, but this was not observed consistently. No
binding was detected between Csp and GST, GST-CFTR-N random, or
GST-syntaxin 1A in these pull-down assays. The interaction of Csp with
CFTR-N is consistent with the finding from the above coimmunoprecipitation studies and suggests that the interaction with
CFTR-N could be masked by Csp binding.

View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Csp interacts with the R-domain and N
terminus of CFTR. Bead-immobilized GST-CFTR fusion proteins were
incubated with Calu-3 membrane extracts. After washing, samples were
resolved on 12% SDS-PAGE. Coomassie Blue staining was used to
determine protein loading (panel A); membranes were blotted
with Csp antiserum (panel B). GST-CFTR fusion proteins:
lane 1, GST; lane 2, GST-R; lane 3,
GST-C; lane 4, GST-N; lane 5, GST-N random;
lane 6, GST-syntaxin 1A. BSA, bovine serum
albumin.
|
|
As indicated above, two Csp isoforms have been identified in various
mammalian species (21); Csp2 is truncated by 31 amino acids at the C
terminus relative to Csp1. The Csp isoform(s) that interact with CFTR
or CFTR domains in Calu-3 cells (Figs. 3 and 4) cannot be determined
because of the lack of isoform specific Csp antibodies. Csp1 may be the
more physiologically significant isoform because of its predominant
expression and the presence of only Csp1 in some species (Fig. 1). In
further characterizing CFTR-Csp interactions, we evaluated the
influence of both Csp1 and Csp2; however, in the discussion following
we refer to CFTR interactions with Csp, without attempting to
discriminate whether they are mediated by a specific Csp isoform.
Relative Affinities of Csp for CFTR Domains--
To determine the
relative binding properties of Csp1 and 2 for CFTR, we performed
binding assays with in vitro synthesized 35S-labeled Csp1 and Csp2. Csp interactions were documented
using autoradiography (Fig.
5A) and liquid scintillation
counting (Fig. 5B). As indicated by the data from both
assays, the interaction of Csp1 with the CFTR R-domain (lane
2) was stronger than that with CFTR-N (lane 4),
consistent with the Calu-3 cell pull-down experiments of Fig. 4. In the
present experiments, a weak interaction between CFTR-NBD1 and Csp1
(lane 5) was also detected relative to the GST negative
control (lane 1). The data for CFTR-C (lane 3)
were not different from the GST control. Unlike Csp1, Csp2 showed
similar levels of binding to CFTR-R and CFTR-N. Like Csp1, Csp2 showed
significant but low level binding to CFTR-NBD1 relative to the GST
control. The lower panel provides pooled data from three
independent experiments.

View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Quantitative Csp interactions with the CFTR
R-domain and N terminus. Immobilized GST-CFTR fusion proteins were
incubated with 35S-Csp1 or 35S-Csp2, washed,
and samples were resolved by 15% SDS-PAGE. Csp binding was detected by
autoradiography (panel A) and liquid scintillation counting
(panel B). Mean data from three independent experiments are
shown. Asterisks indicate a significant difference from the
GST control. Lane 1, GST; lane 2, GST-R;
lane 3, GST-C; lane 4, GST-N; lane 5,
GST-NBD1; S1 or S2, 1 µl of 35S-Csp1 or
35S-Csp2 loaded as a positive control. The higher molecular
mass bands are thought to represent Csp dimers and have been observed
previously (47).
|
|
To determine the relative binding affinities of Csps with the CFTR
R-domain and N terminus, we performed in vitro competitive binding assays as described under "Experimental Procedures." In these pull-down experiments, 35S-labeled Csp1 or 2 was
mixed with various amounts of unlabeled Csp before mixing with
immobilized CFTR domains. As shown in Fig. 6A, unlabeled Csp1 competed
with labeled Csp1 for binding to CFTR-R, such that 1 µM
unlabeled Csp1 eliminated 51% of 35S-Csp1 binding. The
results imply that the affinity for Csp1 binding to CFTR-R is ~1
µM. Qualitatively similar results were obtained for Csp1
binding to the CFTR N terminus, but in this case the apparent binding
affinity was ~10 nM. Similar to the data of Fig. 6A, the association of labeled Csp2 with either the CFTR N
terminus or R-domain was essentially eliminated in the presence of 1 µM cold Csp2 (data not shown). These results indicate
that both Csp1 and Csp2 show saturable binding to the R-domain and N
terminus of CFTR and that the affinities of these interactions are in
the submicromolar range. Whether the differences in apparent binding affinity detected in these experiments (e.g. Csp1
interactions with R and N) have physiological significance will require
detailed knowledge of their functional consequences.

View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Affinity of Csp binding to CFTR-R and CFTR-N.
Panels A and B, immobilized GST-CFTR fusion
proteins were incubated with 35S-Csp1 in the presence and
absence of five concentrations of unlabeled Csp1 and binding detected
by autoradiography (upper panels) or densitometric
quantification after autoradiography (lower panels).
Lane B, 35S-Csp1 omitted as a negative control;
lane C, equivalent amount of 35S-Csp1 added as a
positive control.
|
|
Csp Coexpression Inhibits CFTR Chloride Currents--
The multiple
domain interactions observed for Csp binding to CFTR, as well as the
colocalization of these proteins in the ER and apical membrane domain,
suggest that the functional interactions between these proteins could
be extensive. To initiate such studies, we coexpressed CFTR with either
Csp1 or Csp2 in Xenopus oocytes and determined the
CFTR-dependent current and capacitance changes evoked
during cAMP stimulation. Prior studies of CFTR-expressing oocytes
indicate that the cAMP-induced membrane current
( Im) is caused by the chloride flow through
the CFTR and that the corresponding increase in membrane capacitance
( Cm) monitors changes in cell surface area
which are associated with regulated insertion of CFTR into the plasma
membrane (10, 41). In relation to the initial rationale for these
studies, we monitored Cm because Csp is known
to function in regulated exocytosis in other systems (21). Control
oocytes not injected with CFTR cRNA showed no changes in
Im or Cm in response to
cAMP stimulation, as observed previously (41). Expression of Csp
without CFTR also yielded no Im or
Cm responses to cAMP (data not shown). The
steady-state data from eight experiments in CFTR expressing oocytes are
provided in Fig. 7, lower
panel. Coexpression of Csp1 or Csp2 with CFTR decreased the
Im and Cm responses
that result from CFTR stimulation. Although either Csp isoform reduced
the functional expression of CFTR, Csp2 was the more potent inhibitor
of Im and Cm
(~90% inhibition) relative to Csp1 (~50% inhibition). The
upper panel of Fig. 7 documents the expression of
Myc-tagged Csp isoforms at the time of recording. The band in
lane 1, observed in oocytes expressing CFTR alone,
corresponds to the single known endogenous Xenopus Csp,
consistent with the A6 cell line data shown in Fig. 1A. The
exogenous expression of Myc-tagged Csp1 and 2 are shown in lanes
2 and 3 of the upper panel. We do not know
whether the endogenous Xenopus Csp, which most closely
resembles mammalian Csp1 (42), contributes to differences in the extent
of inhibition by these isoforms or whether the different potencies
relate to their structural features.

View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Csp coexpression inhibits CFTR
Im and
Cm. Lower panel,
Im (solid bars) and basal and
stimulated Cm values (horizontal and
vertical lined bars, respectively) in oocytes expressing
CFTR or CFTR plus the indicated Csp isoform. Stimulation was elicited
by bath addition of 10 µM forskolin and 1 mM
isobutylmethylxanthine. Steady-state data are from three
independent experiments are shown. Numbers of observations: CFTR, 36;
CFTR + Csp1, 14; CFTR + Csp2, 28. Im and
Cm inhibition with Csp coexpression was
significant (p < 0.05). Upper panel, oocyte
expression of endogenous Xenopus Csp (all lanes),
Myc-Csp1 (lane 2), and Myc-Csp2 (lane 3) in
parallel experiments. cRNA injected/oocyte: CFTR, 1 ng; Csp isoforms, 5 ng.
|
|
Csp Inhibits Functional CFTR Responses by Decreasing
Steady-state CFTR Expression--
To determine whether the observed
inhibition of CFTR current and capacitance changes was the result of a
Csp-induced change in CFTR expression levels, we immunoprecipitated
CFTR from oocytes expressing CFTR alone or CFTR plus Csp1, Csp2 or the
Csp2 double mutant, H43Q/E93V. CFTR was precipitated from oocyte
membrane extracts, resolved on SDS-PAGE, and immunoblotted (see
"Experimental Procedures"). CFTR currents recorded from these
populations of oocytes at the time of harvest are also provided. As
seen in Fig. 8 (upper panel),
the coexpression of Csp1 or Csp2 produced significant decreases in the
level of CFTR expression (to 52 and 36% of the control level by
densitometry, lanes 3 and 4, respectively). As a
negative control, CFTR was not detected in noninjected oocytes (lane 1). As a positive control, we blotted CFTR expressed
transiently in HEK293 cells (lane 6). The apparent molecular
masses of CFTR B and C bands expressed in oocytes was similar to those
observed in HEK cells (a longer exposure demonstrated migration of HEK cell band B at the same location as observed in oocytes). An increase in CFTR expression was observed with the Csp2 double mutant, but this
did not result in currents greater than those of the CFTR control. This
degree of CFTR expression increase was not observed in all experiments,
and it was not present in mammalian cells (see below). The basis of
this stimulatory effect of Csp2 double mutant has not been pursued. As
to the double mutant mutation sites, His-43 is a conserved site in the
J-domain of Csp which is essential for Hsc70 binding and ATP hydrolysis
(48), and Glu-93 is located in the Csp linker region and has been shown previously to abrogate the inhibitory effect of Csp overexpression on
insulin release from pancreatic cells (24). These results indicate that
the effects of exogenously expressed Csp on CFTR activity are specific
for known Csp functional domains, and they suggest that the inhibition
of CFTR functional response is due primarily to a Csp-induced reduction
in CFTR protein expression.

View larger version (48K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 8.
Csp coexpression reduces oocyte CFTR protein
levels. cRNAs encoding CFTR (1 ng) and Csp isoforms (5 ng) were
injected into Xenopus oocytes as indicated. Upper
panel, results from CFTR immunoprecipitation. Immunoprecipitation
was performed with anti-CFTR monoclonal M3A7, and the immunoblot was
probed with anti-CFTR polyclonal R3195 antibodies. Lane 1,
uninjected control; lane 2, CFTR alone; lane 3,
CFTR plus Csp1; lane 4, CFTR plus Csp2; lane 5,
CFTR plus Csp2 double mutant; lane 6, HEK293 cells
transiently expressing CFTR used as a positive control. Lower
panel, cAMP-stimulated chloride currents recorded from the oocyte
populations used for the immunoprecipitations. Data are from five
pooled oocytes for immunoprecipitation (50 µg of protein/lane) and
four or five oocytes for ICl under each
condition. Recordings/immunoprecipitations were performed 4 days after
injection.
|
|
Csp Coexpression Inhibits CFTR Biogenesis--
The influence of
Csp coexpression on the steady-state levels of CFTR expressed in
mammalian cells was determined by cotransfecting HEK293 cells with
plasmids encoding Csp and CFTR. CFTR levels were determined by
immunoblot after 24 h. The Csp cDNAs used for transfection
included an N-terminal Myc-tag, permitting exogenous Csp expression to
be detected using an anti-Myc antibody (lower panel, Fig.
9A). As shown in the top
panel of Fig. 9A, the coexpression of either Csp1 or
Csp2 with CFTR (lanes 3 and 4) eliminated the expression of mature, glycosylated CFTR (band C) and produced an
accumulation of immature CFTR (band B). This finding suggests that Csp
overexpression interferes with the processing of CFTR to its mature
form and that it stabilizes the immature form of CFTR. The effect of
exogenous Csp on CFTR biogenesis is specific because the Csp2 double
mutant (H43V/E93Q) eliminated its inhibitory effect on CFTR maturation
(lane 5). In other experiments, a similar result was
obtained with the Csp2 single mutant, H43Q, implying that a functional
J-domain is critical for the inhibitory effect of Csp overexpression.
The enhancement of CFTR protein level by the Csp2 double mutant found
in oocytes was not observed in mammalian cells.

View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 9.
Effect of Csp on CFTR biogenesis. Panel
A, HEK293 cells were transfected with CFTR (lane 2),
CFTR plus Myc-Csp1 (lane 3), CFTR plus Myc-Csp2 (lane
4), and CFTR plus Myc-Csp2 double mutant (lane 5).
Lane 1, nontransfected control. After 24 h, 50 µg of
cell extract was resolved by 7% or by 15% mini-SDS-PAGE, and blots
were probed with polyclonal anti-CFTR (R3195, 1:2,000), monoclonal
anti-Hsc70 (1:2,000), or monoclonal anti-c-Myc (9E10, 1:2,000, Sigma)
antibodies. B and C indicate the positions of
immature and mature CFTR, respectively. Panel B, HEK293
cells were transfected with VSV-G (lane 1) or VSV-G plus
Csp1 (lane 2); blots were probed with anti-VSV-G polyclonal
(1:5,000). Experiments were otherwise performed as in panel
A.
|
|
Because Csp is an Hsc70-binding protein, we examined the levels of
Hsc70 by immunoblot under these conditions. As shown in the
middle panel of Fig. 9A, the effect of Csp1 or 2 on CFTR expression was not associated with a change in Hsc70 expression
levels when this Hsc70-binding protein was expressed. Thus, the failure
of cells to express mature CFTR is not caused by a change in the expression of this important CFTR chaperone. In addition, the specificity of the Csp effect for CFTR biogenesis was determined by
coexpressing Csp with the VSV-G. Csp coexpression did not affect the
production of the mature VSV-G, in experiments performed in a manner
similar to those with CFTR (Fig. 9B). This result suggests that the effect of expressed Csp is specific for maturation of CFTR.
The effect of Csp on the steady-state expression of mature CFTR was
supported by the results of pulse-chase assays. As shown in Fig.
10, Csp1 coexpression in HEK293 cells
blocked the conversion of immature CFTR to mature CFTR. As in prior
studies (5), ~30% of wild-type CFTR matures to the fully
glycosylated band C protein (lower panels); however, no band
C was detected in Csp-coexpressing cells. In addition, the half-life of
immature CFTR was prolonged, consistent with the accumulation of band B
observed in the steady-state data (Fig. 9A). Similar effects
on the biogenesis of mature CFTR resulted from the coexpression of Csp2
(data not shown). With Csp coexpression, the rise in band B production
at chase periods of 30 and 60 min is probably attributed to the lack of
cold methionine and cysteine in the chase media; nevertheless, the
experiments with CFTR alone were performed identically. The results
indicate that Csp interferes with CFTR biogenesis when Csp is
overexpressed. The implications of these findings for a physiological
role of Csp in the production of CFTR will be discussed below.

View larger version (51K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 10.
Pulse-chase analysis of CFTR
biogenesis in HEK293 cells, performed as described under
"Experimental Procedures." TTF indicates the
transient transfection conditions. 35S-Labeled CFTR
was immunoprecipitated using 3 µg of monoclonal CFTR antibody M3A7.
Samples were resolved on SDS-PAGE, and CFTR was revealed by
autoradiography. The intensities of CFTR C and B forms at the indicated
times were quantified by densitometry and are expressed as a percentage
of CFTR B form at chase time = 0 (taken as 100%).
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
The results of this study show that Csp is expressed in a variety
of epithelial cell lines, several of which are models for CFTR-mediated
chloride secretion. These cells expressed predominantly Csp1, as
observed previously in neurons and secretory cells (21) (e.g. see SY5Y result, Fig. 1). Immunofluorescent labeling
showed a membrane-limited distribution of Csp in ER and apical membrane compartments. Significant amounts of CFTR coprecipitated with Csp from
Calu-3 cell lysates; in protein binding assays, Csp associated with
both the CFTR R-domain and the N terminus. The overexpression of Csp
decreased CFTR biogenesis, and it correspondingly reduced the
functional response of CFTR to cAMP stimulation. These results indicate
that Csp interacts physically and functionally with CFTR in epithelial
cells. This is the first report of an action of Csp on protein
maturation, as discussed below.
Role of Csp in Regulated Exocytosis--
Csp is expected to
influence CFTR directly by virtue of its localization at the cytosolic
surfaces of intracellular membranes that contain CFTR. A defining
feature of the Csps is their central cysteine-rich (string) domain,
where palmitoylation at multiple sites permits Csp to associate with
membrane lipid (49). Immunofluorescence demonstrated that Csp is
distributed in membrane-limited compartments, including the apical
membrane domain, in Calu-3 cells (Fig. 2). The Csps were discovered in
Drosophila, and from their cellular distribution and
knockout studies, a role for these proteins in neurotransmitter
secretion became apparent (18). Studies in neuroendocrine (28) and
endocrine cells (24) have confirmed the role of Csp in regulated
exocytosis. Several studies have implicated a regulated exocytic event
in the control of plasma membrane CFTR channel density (50). In
Xenopus oocytes expressing CFTR, cAMP stimulation enhances
the chloride current and elicits increases in membrane capacitance and
cell surface CFTR labeling, consistent with cAMP-regulated insertion of
CFTR into the plasma membrane (10, 41, 51). In adenovirus-transduced
Madin-Darby canine kidney cells, CFTR was distributed in both
intracellular and plasma membrane compartments under basal conditions
and was recruited to the plasma membrane during cAMP stimulation (52). The partial colocalization of Csp with CFTR at the apical membrane domain of Calu-3 cells (Fig. 2E) and its interaction with
mature (band C) CFTR (Fig. 3A) is consistent with the
concept that this protein may participate in post-Golgi CFTR
trafficking events. It will be interesting to determine whether Csp
interacts with CFTR in a regulated trafficking compartment because this
location would be consonant with the documented role of Csp in
regulated exocytosis. To perform such studies, however, it will be
necessary to obviate the influence of Csp on CFTR maturation.
A Role for Csp in CFTR Biogenesis--
We found Csp to be
localized in airway epithelial cells in a compartment marked by the ER
resident protein, calnexin. Coimmunoprecipitation experiments showed
that more of the core glycosylated, immature CFTR was associated with
Csp than was the mature, fully glycosylated protein, particularly in
proportion to the steady-state expression levels of the mature and
immature forms of CFTR. In addition, Csp coexpression reduced the
production of mature CFTR, and this effect of Csp appears to require a
functional J-domain. These results imply that Csp and CFTR interact
during CFTR biogenesis in the ER. As a member of the DnaJ family of
proteins, Csp could play a role in CFTR processing via its association
with Hsc70. The DnaJ proteins can serve as co-chaperones that recruit
Hsc70 ATPases to specific substrates, where they activate the ATPase activity of the chaperone to modulate protein conformation (folding) or
protein-protein interactions (4, 29). Hsc70 has long been recognized as
a CFTR chaperone, which coprecipitates with CFTR in the presence of ATP
(39). Hsc70 has been shown to assist in preventing the aggregation of
NBD1, the domain in which the common CFTR folding mutant, F508, is
located (4, 53, 54). Normally, wild-type CFTR will be released from
chaperones as it achieves its native conformation, but Hsc70 is thought
to remain attached to misfolded CFTR where it can recruit the ubiquitin ligase, CHIP, to facilitate proteosome-mediated CFTR degradation (40, 55).
Csp is a J-domain protein that interacts with Hsc70 and enhances its
ATPase activity (56). The interaction of Csp with Hsc70 and CFTR is
likely to affect CFTR processing in one of two ways. First, Csp may be
a CFTR co-chaperone that stabilizes intermediate forms of CFTR to
promote their folding and maturation. This model suggests that Csp
contributes positively to CFTR maturation, similar to the Hsc70
co-chaperone, Hdj-2 (53). Second, Csp interactions with nonfolded CFTR
intermediates may contribute to the degradation of nascent CFTR. This
model suggests that Csp may contribute to CFTR degradation, similar to
the Hsc70-interacting protein, CHIP (see below). Either model could
explain how Csp overexpression reduces the steady-state expression
levels of mature CFTR in mammalian cells or oocytes and therefore, the
cAMP-stimulated CFTR currents (Figs. 8 and 9). In the first model, Csp
overexpression causes a prolonged association of Hsc70 with CFTR, which
can target CFTR for degradation (55). Hsc70 has been shown to promote
the ubiquitination and degradation of several cellular proteins (57).
For example, overexpression of Hsc70 leads to ubiquitination and
degradation of apolipoprotein B (58). Thus, a prolonged Csp-mediated
association of CFTR with Hsc70, because of Csp overexpression, could
lead to CFTR degradation, despite the possibility that the
physiological role of Csp is to facilitate CFTR biogenesis.
The second model is trivial, in that augmenting the level of a protein
involved in CFTR degradation would reduce CFTR expression. Illustrative
of this model is the Hsc70-binding protein CHIP, a ubiquitin ligase
whose overexpression promotes proteasome-mediated CFTR degradation
(40). CHIP appears to recognize slowly folding or misfolded forms of
CFTR and promotes their destruction by binding to CFTR-associated
Hsc70. CHIP then targets CFTR to ubiquitin-conjugating enzymes. The
finding that proteosome inhibitors fail to promote trafficking of class
II CFTR mutants suggests that mechanisms exist for irreversible
targeting of protein to intracellular degradation processes before
their cellular destruction. CHIP appears to be a component of this
pathway; in principle, Csp could function in this manner as well.
Several findings favor the co-chaperone model. First, the predominant
interaction of Csp with CFTR band B in Calu-3 cells (Fig. 3) suggests a
physiological role for Csp in the maturation of CFTR because the
majority of the CFTR expressed in these cells is the fully glycosylated
mature form. Second, the direct interaction of Csp with CFTR subdomains
in the absence of Hsc70 (Figs. 4 and 5) suggests that Csp may localize
Hsc70 at specific sites to facilitate CFTR folding. In contrast to CHIP
(40), Csp does not require Hsc70 for its interaction with CFTR. Third,
Csp overexpression stabilized CFTR band B, which is contrary to the
result expected for a protein that promotes degradation. Finally,
previous data indicate a positive role for Csp in protein folding
processes, also favoring the first model of Csp interaction. As is true
of other DnaJ proteins, Csp can bind to unfolded proteins and prevent their aggregation (49). This activity is synergistic with the similar
action of Hsc70. Together, these findings suggest that Csp may serve as
a co-chaperone during CFTR biogenesis.
Csp Interactions with the N terminus and R-domain--
With regard
to protein interactions that could regulate CFTR biogenesis, it is
interesting that Csp has the capacity to bind to both the R-domain and
the CFTR N terminus. Previous studies implicate the N terminus as a
site important for the normal processing of CFTR and suggest that
interactions of the R-domain with other CFTR subdomains may facilitate
its biogenesis (3). N-terminal truncations of CFTR are poorly
processed, and little of the truncated protein is able to traffic to
the plasma membrane. In addition, several N-terminal disease mutations
are processing mutants. Several studies indicate that a pivotal point
in CFTR synthesis is the generation of the R-domain. Before synthesis
of the R-domain, CFTR is unstable and is associated with chaperones to
prevent NBD aggregation (53, 54). Once the R-domain is formed,
chaperone protein associations with CFTR decrease, and the nascent
protein becomes more stable. Other studies indicate that mutations near the N terminus of CFTR which lead ultimately to protein degradation are
not recognized by the ER-associated degradation machinery until the
R-domain is synthesized (3). This implies that degradation processes
recognize structural interfaces between CFTR subdomains. These
interdomain effects may be mediated by specific co-chaperones that can
interact with several CFTR subdomains to facilitate access of Hsc70 to
intermediates in the folding pathway; Csp is a candidate for such interactions.
Finally, the discussion has focused primarily on CFTR biogenesis in the
ER; however, it is possible also that the physiological action of Csp
involves the trafficking of immature CFTR to post-ER compartments. For
example, Csp and CFTR could interact in the transition of CFTR to the
ER-Golgi intermediate compartment or to proximal Golgi regions prior to
CFTR glycosylation. The mechanistic involvement of Csp in such
trafficking processes may parallel its action in regulated exocytic
events (see discussion above), presumably exploiting its interaction
with Hsc70 to facilitate trafficking protein interactions. In addition,
a nonconventional pathway for CFTR trafficking has been proposed
recently (59, 60) involving direct transit from the ER to the
trans-Golgi network, perhaps via an endosomal compartment. Csp could be
involved in these trafficking steps; however, the significance of their role in CFTR maturation was cell type-dependent, and the
presence of this pathway in epithelial cells has not yet been
demonstrated. Further studies will be necessary to evaluate these possibilities.
Formerly, Csp has been implicated as an important component of the
regulated exocytic machinery at the plasma membrane, and this was our
rationale for examining Csp actions in relation to regulated CFTR
trafficking. However, the principal findings of the present study
demonstrate a primary role for Csp in CFTR protein maturation. Although
Csp did not interact with the process of VSV-G maturation, it will be
interesting to determine whether there are additional proteins whose
biogenesis involves interactions with Csp.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We thank Richard J. Dudley and Mathew P. Wrigley for excellent technical assistance; John R. Riordan for
antibody; Mark Silvis, Neil A. Bradbury, and Meir Aridor for help with
the pulse-chase studies; Simon C. Watkins for assistance with image
analysis; and Jeffrey L. Brodsky and Meir Aridor for comments on the manuscript.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health
Grant DK56490, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Grants FRIZZE97RO and
99GO, and a grant from the Wellcome Trust.The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Cell
Biology and Physiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, S362 BST, 3500 Terrace St., Pittsburgh, PA 15261. Tel.:
412-648-9498; E-mail: frizzell@pitt.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, May 30, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M111706200
2
H. Zhang and R. A. Frizzell, unpublished data.
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
CFTR, cystic
fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator;
Cm, capacitance current;
Csp, cysteine string
protein;
ER, endoplasmic reticulum;
GST, glutathione
S-transferase;
GST-C, GST-CFTR C terminus;
GST-N, GST-CFTR N
terminus;
GST-R, GST-CFTR R-domain;
HEK, human embryonic kidney;
Hsc, heat shock cognate;
Im, cAMP-induced membrane
current;
NBD, nucleotide binding domain;
R-domain, regulatory domain;
SNARE, soluble NSF attachment protein receptor;
VSV-G, vesicular
stomatitis virus glycoprotein;
CHIP, C terminus of Hsc70-interacting
protein.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Pilewski, J. M.,
and Frizzell, R. A.
(1999)
Physiol. Rev.
79 (Suppl. 1),
S215-S255[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 2.
|
Qu, B. H.,
Strickland, E.,
and Thomas, P. J.
(1997)
J. Bioenerg. Biomembr.
5,
483-490
|
| 3.
|
Skach, W. R.
(2000)
Kidney Int.
57,
825-831[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 4.
|
Brodsky, J.
(2001)
Am. J. Physiol.
281,
L39-L42
|
| 5.
|
Jensen, T. J.,
Loo, M. A.,
Pind, S.,
Williams, D. B.,
Goldberg, A. L.,
and Riordan, J. R.
(1995)
Cell
83,
129-135[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 6.
|
Ward, C. L.,
Omura, S.,
and Kopita, R. R.
(1995)
Cell
83,
121-127[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 7.
|
Bradbury, N. A.,
Jilling, T.,
Berta, G.,
Sorscher, E. J.,
Bridges, R. J.,
and Kirk, K. L.
(1992)
Science
256,
530-532[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 8.
|
Naren, A. P.,
Quick, M. W.,
Collawn, J. F.,
Nelson, D. J.,
and Kirk, K. L.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
10972-10977[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 9.
|
Naren, A. P., Di, A.,
Cormet-Boyaka, E.,
Boyaka, P. N.,
McGhee, J. R.,
Zhou, W.,
Akagawa, K.,
Fujiwara, T.,
Thome, U.,
Engelhardt, J. F.,
Nelson, D. J.,
and Kirk, K. L.
(2000)
J. Clin. Invest.
105,
377-386[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 10.
|
Peters, K. W., Qi., J.-J.,
Watkins, S. C.,
and Frizzell, R. A.
(1999)
Am. J. Physiol.
277,
C174-C180[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 11.
|
Prince, L. S.,
Peter, K.,
Hatton, S. R.,
Zaliauskiene, L.,
Cotlin, L. F.,
Clancy, J. P.,
Marchase, R. B.,
and Collawn, J. F.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
3602-3609[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 12.
|
Weixel, K. M.,
and Bradbury, N. A.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
3655-3660[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 13.
|
Short, D. B.,
Trotter, K. W.,
Reczek, D.,
Kreda, S. M.,
Bretscher, A.,
Boucher, R. C.,
Stutts, M. J.,
and Milgram, S. L.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
19797-19801[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 14.
|
Sun, F.,
Hug, M. J.,
Bradbury, N. A.,
and Frizzell, R. A.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
14360-14366[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 15.
|
Sun, F.,
Hug, M. J.,
Lewarchik, C. M.,
Yun, C.-H. C.,
Bradbury, N. A.,
and Frizzell, R. A.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
29539-29546[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 16.
|
Huang, P.,
Trotter, K.,
Boucher, R. C.,
Milgram, S. I.,
and Stutts, M. J.
(2000)
Am. J. Physiol.
278,
C417-C422
|
| 17.
|
Moyer, B. D.,
Duhaime, M.,
Shaw, C.,
Denton, J.,
Reynolds, D.,
Karlson, K. H.,
Pfeiffer, J.,
Wang, S.,
Mickle, J. E.,
Milewski, M.,
Cutting, G. R.,
Guggino, W. B., Li, M.,
and Stanton, B. A.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
27069-27074[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 18.
|
Zinsmaier, K. E.,
Hofbauer, A.,
Heimbeck, G.,
Pflugfelder, G. O.,
Buchner, S.,
and Buchner, E.
(1990)
J. Neurogenet.
7,
15-29[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 19.
|
Mastrogiacomo, A.,
Parsons, S. M.,
Zampighi, G. A.,
Jenden, D. J.,
Umbach, J. A.,
and Gundersen, C. B.
(1994)
Science
263,
981-982[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 20.
|
Coppola, T.,
and Gundersen, C.
(1996)
FEBS Lett.
391,
269-272[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 21.
|
Chamberlain, L. H.,
and Burgoyne, R. D.
(2000)
J. Neurochem.
74,
1781-1789[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 22.
|
Zinsmaier, K. E.,
Eberle, K. K.,
Buchner, E.,
Walter, N.,
and Benzer, S.
(1994)
Science
263,
977-980[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 23.
|
Brown, H.,
Larsson, O.,
Branstrom, R.,
Yang, S. N.,
Leibiger, B.,
Leibiger, I.,
Fried, G.,
Moede, T.,
Deeney, J. T.,
Brown, G. R.,
Jacobsson, G.,
Rhodes, C. J.,
Braun, J. E.,
Scheller, R. H.,
Corkey, B. E.,
Berggren, P. O.,
and Meister, B.
(1998)
EMBO J.
17,
5048-5058[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 24.
|
Zhang, H.,
Kelley, W. L.,
Chamberlain, L. H.,
Burgoyne, R. D.,
Wollheim, C. B.,
and Lang, J.
(1998)
FEBS Lett.
437,
267-272[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 25.
|
Ranjan, R.,
Bronk, P.,
and Zinsmaier, K. E.
(1998)
J. Neurosci.
18,
956-964[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 26.
|
Umbach, J. A.,
Zinsmaier, K. E.,
Eberle, K. K.,
Buchner, E.,
Benzer, S.,
and Gundersen, C. B.
(1994)
Neuron
13,
899-907[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 27.
|
Poage, R. E.,
Meriney, S. D.,
Gundersen, C. B.,
and Umbach, J. A.
(1999)
J. Neurophysiol.
82,
50-59[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 28.
|
Burgoyne, R. D.,
and Morgan, A.
(1998)
Bioessays
20,
328-335[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 29.
|
Fink, A. L.
(1999)
Physiol. Rev.
79,
425-449[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 30.
|
Leveque, C.,
Pupier, S.,
Marqueze, B.,
Geslin, L.,
Kataoka, M.,
Takahashi, M., De,
Waard, M.,
and Seagar, M.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
13488-13492[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 31.
|
Nie, Z.,
Ranjan, R.,
Wenniger, J. J.,
Hong, S. N.,
Bronk, P.,
and Zinsmaier, K. E.
(1999)
J. Neurosci.
19,
10270-10279[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 32.
|
Chamberlain, L. H.,
and Burgoyne, R. D.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
7320-7323[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 33.
|
Mastrogiacomo, A.,
Kornblum, H. I.,
Umbach, J. A.,
and Gundersen, C. B.
(1998)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
1401,
239-241[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 34.
|
Zhang, H.,
Kelley, W. L.,
Chamberlain, L. H.,
Burgoyne, R. D.,
and Lang, J.
(1999)
J. Cell Sci.
112,
1345-1351[Abstract]
|
| 35.
|
French, P. J.,
van Doorninck, J. H.,
Peters, R. H.,
Verbeek, E.,
Ameen, N. A.,
Marino, C. R.,
de Jonge, H. R.,
Bijman, J.,
and Scholte, B. J.
(1996)
J. Clin. Invest.
98,
1304-1312[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 36.
|
Weisz, O. A.,
Wang, M.,
Edinger, R. S.,
and Johnson, J. P.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
39886-39893[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 37.
|
Lang, J.,
Fukuda, M.,
Zhang, H.,
Mikoshiba, K.,
and Wollheim, C. B.
(1997)
EMBO J.
16,
5837-5846[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 38.
|
Saxena, S.,
Quick, M. W.,
Tousson, A., Oh, Y.,
and Warnock, D. G.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
20812-20817[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 39.
|
Yang, Y.,
Janich, S.,
Cohn, J. A.,
and Wilson, J. M.
(1993)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
90,
9480-9484[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 40.
|
Meacham, G. C.,
Patterson, C.,
Zhang, W.,
Younger, J. M.,
and Cyr, D. M.
(2001)
Nat. Cell Biol.
3,
100-105[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 41.
|
Takahashi, A.,
Watkins, S. C.,
Howard, M. B.,
and Frizzell, R. A.
(1996)
Am. J. Physiol.
271,
C1-C8[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 42.
|
Mastrogiacomo, A.,
Kohan, S. A.,
Whitelegge, J. P.,
and Gundersen, C. B.
(1998)
FEBS Lett.
436,
85-91[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 43.
|
Chamberlain, L. H.,
and Burgoyne, R. D.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
19514-19517[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 44.
|
Rose, M. C.,
Piazza, F. M.,
Chen, Y. A.,
Alimam, M. Z.,
Bautista, M. V.,
Letwin, N.,
and Rajput, B.
(2000)
J. Aerosol. Med.
13,
245-261[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 45.
|
Finkbeiner, W. E.,
Carrier, S. D.,
and Teresi, C. E.
(1993)
Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol.
9,
547-556[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 46.
|
Kuver, R.,
Klinkspoor, J. H.,
Osborne, W. R.,
and Lee, S. P.
(2000)
Glycobiology
10,
149-157[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 47.
|
Gundersen, C. B.,
Umbach, J. A.,
and Mastrogiacomo, A.
(1996)
Life Sci.
58,
2037-2040[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 48.
|
Chamberlain, L. H.,
and Burgoyne, R. D.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
31420-31426[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 49.
|
Chamberlain, L. H.,
and Burgoyne, R. D.
(1998)
Biochem. J.
335,
205-209[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 50.
|
Bradbury, N.
(1999)
Am. J. Physiol.
278,
C257-C258
|
| 51.
|
Weber, W. M.,
Cuppens, H.,
Cassiman, J. J.,
Clauss, W.,
and Van Driessche, W.
(1999)
Pflugers Arch.
438,
561-569[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 52.
|
Howard, M.,
Jiang, X.,
Stolz, D. B.,
Hill, W. G.,
Johnson, J. A.,
Watkins, S. C.,
Frizzell, R. A.,
Bruton, C. M.,
Robbins, P. D.,
and Weisz, O. A.
(2000)
Am. J. Physiol.
279,
C373-C382
|
| 53.
|
Meacham, G. C., Lu, Z.,
King, S.,
Sorscher, E.,
Tousson, A.,
and Cyr, D. M.
(1999)
EMBO J.
18,
1492-1505[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 54.
|
Strickland, E., Qu, B. H.,
Millen, L.,
and Thomas, P. J.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
25421-25424[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 55.
|
Rubenstein, R. C.,
and Zeitlin, P. L.
(2000)
Am. J. Physiol.
278,
C259-C267
|
| 56.
|
Braun, J. E.,
Wilbanks, S. M.,
and Scheller, R. H.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
25989-25993[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 57.
|
Bercovich, B.,
Stancovski, I.,
Mayer, A.,
Blumenfeld, N.,
Laszlo, A.,
Schwartz, A. L.,
and Ciechanover, A.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
9002-9010[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 58.
|
Gusarova, V.,
Caplan, A. J.,
Brodsky, J. L.,
and Fisher, E. A.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
24891-24900[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 59.
|
Bannykh, S. I.,
Bannykh, G. I.,
Fish, K. N.,
Moyer, B. D.,
Riordan, J. R.,
and Balch, W. E.
(2000)
Traffic
1,
852-870[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 60.
|
Yoo, J.-S.,
Moyer, B. D.,
Bannykh, S.,
Yoo, H.-M.,
Riordan, J. R.,
and Balch, W. E.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
11401-11409[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
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:

|
 |

|
 |
 
B. Z. Schmidt, R. J. Watts, M. Aridor, and R. A. Frizzell
Cysteine String Protein Promotes Proteasomal Degradation of the Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator (CFTR) by Increasing Its Interaction with the C Terminus of Hsp70-interacting Protein and Promoting CFTR Ubiquitylation
J. Biol. Chem.,
February 13, 2009;
284(7):
4168 - 4178.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. Park, S. Fang, A. L. Crews, K.-W. Lin, and K. B. Adler
MARCKS Regulation of Mucin Secretion by Airway Epithelium in Vitro: Interaction with Chaperones
Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol.,
July 1, 2008;
39(1):
68 - 76.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. M. Bernardi, M. L. Forster, W. I. Lencer, and B. Tsai
Derlin-1 Facilitates the Retro-Translocation of Cholera Toxin
Mol. Biol. Cell,
March 1, 2008;
19(3):
877 - 884.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
W. H. Vila-Carriles, Z.-H. Zhou, J. K. Bubien, C. M. Fuller, and D. J. Benos
Participation of the Chaperone Hsc70 in the Trafficking and Functional Expression of ASIC2 in Glioma Cells
J. Biol. Chem.,
November 23, 2007;
282(47):
34381 - 34391.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. A. J. Lu, T.-X. Sun, T. Matsuzaki, X.-H. Yi, J. Eswara, R. Bouley, M. McKee, and D. Brown
Heat Shock Protein 70 Interacts with Aquaporin-2 and Regulates Its Trafficking
J. Biol. Chem.,
September 28, 2007;
282(39):
28721 - 28732.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. Ahner, K. Nakatsukasa, H. Zhang, R. A. Frizzell, and J. L. Brodsky
Small Heat-Shock Proteins Select {Delta}F508-CFTR for Endoplasmic Reticulum-associated Degradation
Mol. Biol. Cell,
March 1, 2007;
18(3):
806 - 814.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. Greaves and L. H. Chamberlain
Dual Role of the Cysteine-String Domain in Membrane Binding and Palmitoylation-dependent Sorting of the Molecular Chaperone Cysteine-String Protein
Mol. Biol. Cell,
November 1, 2006;
17(11):
4748 - 4759.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. Zaman, S. Carraro, J. Doherty, E. M. Henderson, E. Lendermon, L. Liu, G. Verghese, M. Zigler, M. Ross, E. Park, et al.
S-Nitrosylating Agents: A Novel Class of Compounds That Increase Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator Expression and Maturation in Epithelial Cells
Mol. Pharmacol.,
October 1, 2006;
70(4):
1435 - 1442.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. Zhang, B. Z. Schmidt, F. Sun, S. B. Condliffe, M. B. Butterworth, R. T. Youker, J. L. Brodsky, M. Aridor, and R. A. Frizzell
Cysteine String Protein Monitors Late Steps in Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator Biogenesis
J. Biol. Chem.,
April 21, 2006;
281(16):
11312 - 11321.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. Oberdorf, D. Pitonzo, and W. R. Skach
An Energy-dependent Maturation Step Is Required for Release of the Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator from Early Endoplasmic Reticulum Biosynthetic Machinery
J. Biol. Chem.,
November 18, 2005;
280(46):
38193 - 38202.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. M. Farinha and M. D. Amaral
Most F508del-CFTR Is Targeted to Degradation at an Early Folding Checkpoint and Independently of Calnexin
Mol. Cell. Biol.,
June 15, 2005;
25(12):
5242 - 5252.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
X. Wang, J. Matteson, Y. An, B. Moyer, J.-S. Yoo, S. Bannykh, I. A. Wilson, J. R. Riordan, and W. E. Balch
COPII-dependent export of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator from the ER uses a di-acidic exit code
J. Cell Biol.,
October 11, 2004;
167(1):
65 - 74.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
W. B. Guggino and S. P. Banks-Schlegel
Macromolecular Interactions and Ion Transport in Cystic Fibrosis
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.,
October 1, 2004;
170(7):
815 - 820.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
L. C. Miller, L. A. Swayne, J. G. Kay, Z.-P. Feng, S. E. Jarvis, G. W. Zamponi, and J. E. A. Braun
Molecular determinants of cysteine string protein modulation of N-type calcium channels
J. Cell Sci.,
July 15, 2003;
116(14):
2967 - 2974.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. A. Bertrand and R. A. Frizzell
The role of regulated CFTR trafficking in epithelial secretion
Am J Physiol Cell Physiol,
July 1, 2003;
285(1):
C1 - C18.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. B. Condliffe, M. D. Carattino, R. A. Frizzell, and H. Zhang
Syntaxin 1A Regulates ENaC via Domain-specific Interactions
J. Biol. Chem.,
April 4, 2003;
278(15):
12796 - 12804.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
Copyright © 2002 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
|