Advertisement
JBC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M513665200 on June 8, 2006

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 281, Issue 31, 21857-21868, August 4, 2006
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
281/31/21857    most recent
M513665200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miyano, K.
Right arrow Articles by Sumimoto, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Miyano, K.
Right arrow Articles by Sumimoto, H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Direct Involvement of the Small GTPase Rac in Activation of the Superoxide-producing NADPH Oxidase Nox1*

Kei Miyano{ddagger}§, Noriko Ueno{ddagger}, Ryu Takeya{ddagger}§, and Hideki Sumimoto{ddagger}§1

From the {ddagger}Medical Institute of Bioregulation, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8582, and §CREST, Japan Science and Technology Agency, 4-1-8 Honcho, Kawaguchi, Saitama 332-0012, Japan

Received for publication, December 22, 2005 , and in revised form, June 5, 2006.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Activation of the non-phagocytic superoxide-producing NADPH oxidase Nox1, complexed with p22phox at the membrane, requires its regulatory soluble proteins Noxo1 and Noxa1. However, the role of the small GTPase Rac remained to be clarified. Here we show that Rac directly participates in Nox1 activation via interacting with Noxa1. Electropermeabilized HeLa cells, ectopically expressing Nox1, Noxo1, and Noxa1, produce superoxide in a GTP-dependent manner, which is abrogated by expression of a mutant Noxa1(R103E), defective in Rac binding. Superoxide production in Nox1-expressing HeLa and Caco-2 cells is decreased by depletion or sequestration of Rac; on the other hand, it is enhanced by expression of the constitutively active Rac1(Q61L), but not by that of a mutant Rac1 with the A27K substitution, deficient in binding to Noxa1. We also demonstrate that Nox1 activation requires membrane recruitment of Noxa1, which is normally mediated via Noxa1 binding to Noxo1, a protein tethered to the Nox1 partner p22phox: the Noxa1-Noxo1 and Noxo1-p22phox interactions are both essential for Nox1 activity. Rac likely facilitates the membrane localization of Noxa1: although Noxa1(W436R), defective in Noxo1 binding, neither associates with the membrane nor activates Nox1, the effects of the W436R substitution are restored by expression of Rac1(Q61L). The Rac-Noxa1 interaction also serves at a step different from the Noxa1 localization, because the binding-defective Noxa1(R103E), albeit targeted to the membrane, does not support superoxide production by Nox1. Furthermore, a mutant Noxa1 carrying the substitution of Ala for Val-205 in the activation domain, which is expected to undergo a conformational change upon Rac binding, fully localizes to the membrane but fails to activate Nox1.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Although reactive oxygen species (ROS)2 were previously considered to be by-products in aerobic metabolism, it has recently been accepted that ROS are also produced as true products by specialized enzymes, thereby participating in a variety of biological processes including host defense, hormone biosynthesis, oxygen sensing, and signal transduction (1-5). Enzymes dedicated to ROS production include members of the NAD(P)H oxidase (Nox) family, which are membrane-spanning flavocytochromes that reduce molecular oxygen to superoxide with electron derived from NAD(P)H (1-5).

The best characterized member of the family is gp91phox, also termed Nox2, that functions as the catalytic subunit of the phagocyte NADPH oxidase (phox) (6-9). This oxidase plays a crucial role in host defense, which is evident from recurrent and life-threatening infections that occur in patients with chronic granulomatous disease, whose phagocytes genetically lack the superoxide producing activity (6-9). gp91phox, stably complexed with the membrane-integrated protein p22phox, is dormant in resting cells, but becomes activated during phagocytosis to produce superoxide, a precursor of microbicidal ROS.

Activation of gp91phox/Nox2 requires the small GTPase Rac and the two specific adaptor proteins p47phox and p67phox, each containing two SH3 domains. These proteins, albeit existing in the cytoplasm of resting phagocytes, are targeted upon cell stimulation to the membrane to interact with the gp91phox-p22phox complex, which allows gp91phox to transport electrons for superoxide production (10-16). The stimulus-induced membrane targeting of p47phox and subsequent activation of gp91phox require the interaction between p47phox and p22phox, which is mediated via binding of the p47phox SH3 domains to the p22phox C-terminal proline-rich region (PRR) (16-19): the substitution of Gln for Pro-156 in the PRR of p22phox (P156Q), a mutation found in a patient with chronic granulomatous disease (20), leads to a defective binding to p47phox (16, 17). Upon cell stimulation, p67phox translocates to the membrane via its association with p47phox (21-25), which is crucial for oxidase activation (26). At the membrane, p67phox directly interacts with GTP-bound Rac. This small GTPase is recruited to the membrane independently of p47phox or p67phox, and binds to the p67phox N-terminal region of about 200 amino acid residues, containing four tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR) motifs (27, 28). A mutant p67phox carrying the substitution of Glu for Arg-102 in the third TPR neither interacts with Rac nor supports superoxide production by gp91phox (27). Thus the Rac-p67phox interaction plays an essential role in activation of gp91phox (27-31). In addition, deletion of a region C-terminal to the Rac-binding domain in p67phox (amino acid residues 200-212), so-called an activation domain, or the V204A substitution results in an impaired activation of gp91phox (32, 33). Taken together, Rac binding to the p67phox TPR domain seems to induce a conformational change of the activation domain in p67phox, thereby activating gp91phox (14, 33-35).


Figure 1
View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1.
Domain structures of Noxo1 and Noxa1. Noxo1 harbors a PX domain, two SH3 domains, and a PRR. The SH3 domains bind to the PRR of p22phox. Noxa1 comprises a domain containing 4 units of tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR) motifs, an activation domain (AD), and an SH3 domain. Noxa1 interacts with GTP-bound Rac via the N-terminal TPR domain, whereas Noxa1 associates with Noxo1 via a tail-to-tail interaction of the Noxa1 SH3 domain with the Noxo1 PRR. T1 through T4 denote the first to fourth TPR motifs. Amino acid residues mentioned in the text are indicated by arrowheads.

 
Nox1, the first identified gp91phox homologue in mammals, is abundantly expressed in colon epithelial cells and vascular smooth muscle cells (36, 37). Recent studies have shown that Nox1 participates in host defense at the colon (38, 39) and angiotensin II-mediated hypertension (40, 41). This non-phagocytic oxidase forms a heterodimer with p22phox (42-45), and can be activated by p47phox and p67phox but to a much lesser extent than gp91phox/Nox2 (42, 46, 47). Activation of Nox1 requires the regulatory proteins Noxo1 (Nox organizer 1) and Noxa1 (Nox activator 1), novel respective homologues of p47phox and p67phox, but not cell stimulants (42, 46-48). Noxo1 is known to bind to p22phox via its tandem SH3 domains, whereas Noxa1 interacts with Noxo1 by binding of the Noxa1 SH3 domain to the Noxo1 C terminus (Refs. 40; see Fig. 1). The roles of these interactions in Nox1 activation, however, have remained to be elucidated.

Rac is considered to be involved in ROS production also in non-phagocytic cells (1, 4, 49). This small GTPase, however, does not seem to be directly involved in activation of non-phagocytic oxidases such as Nox3 (50), Nox4 (51), and Duox, a distantly related member of the Nox family (52). On the other hand, it has been reported that blockade of molecules acting upstream of Rac activation decreases superoxide production in Nox1-expressing cells, suggesting the involvement of Rac (53, 54). However, it has remained unknown how Rac functions in Nox1 activation.

We have previously demonstrated that GTP-loaded Rac directly interacts with the N-terminal TPR domain of Noxa1 as well as that of p67phox; the interaction is abolished by substitution of Glu for Arg-103 (Ref. 42; see Fig. 1). In the present study, we show that electropermeabilized HeLa cells, which ectopically express Nox1, Noxo1, and Noxa1, produce superoxide in a GTP-dependent manner. The production is decreased when a mutant Noxa1(R103E) is expressed instead of the wild-type one, indicative of the role for Rac. Consistent with this, Nox1-dependent superoxide production by intact HeLa cells is decreased by depletion or sequestration of Rac, but enhanced by expression of the constitutively active Rac1(Q61L). We also demonstrate that Nox1 activation requires membrane recruitment of Noxa1, which is normally mediated via Noxa1 binding to Noxo1, a protein tethered to the Nox1 partner p22phox: the Noxa1-Noxo1 and Noxo1-p22phox interactions are both required for the superoxide producing activity of Nox1. Rac functions in Nox1 activation via its interaction with Noxa1: this GTPase likely acts by inducing a conformational change of the activation domain of Noxa1; it also facilitates membrane localization of Noxa1 in the absence of sufficient interaction between Noxa1 and Noxo1.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Plasmid Construction—The human cDNAs encoding Nox1, gp91phox/Nox2, p22phox, Noxo1, Noxa1, p47phox, p67phox, Rac1, and the p21-binding domain of the protein kinase Pak (Pak-PBD; amino acids 66-147) were prepared as previously described (27, 40, 48, 55). The cDNA for human RhoGDI (56) were prepared by PCR using a mixture of human brain cDNAs from Human Multiple Tissue cDNA Panel I (BD Biosciences) as a template. Mutations leading to the indicated amino acid substitutions were introduced by PCR-mediated site-directed mutagenesis. The DNA fragments were ligated to the indicated expression vectors. All the constructs were sequenced for confirmation of their identities.

Transfection of cDNAs Encoding Nox1, gp91phox, p22phox, and Cytosolic Regulatory Proteins in HeLa, Caco-2, and CHO Cells—The cDNAs for Nox1 and gp91phox were ligated to the mammalian expression vector pcDNA3.0 (Invitrogen). The cDNA encoding Rac1, p22phox, Noxo1, p47phox, Noxa1, and p67phox ligated to the mammalian expression vector pEF-BOS (57): Rac1 was constructed for expression as a myc-tagged protein; p22phox as a protein without a tag; Noxo1 and p47phox as an HA-tagged protein; and Noxa1 and p67phox as a myc-tagged protein. Transfection of HeLa cells with the cDNAs was performed using Lipofectamine (Invitrogen), whereas FuGENE 6 Transfection Reagent (Roche Diagnostics) was used for transfection of CHO cells (58). When indicated, Nox1 was expressed as a FLAG-tagged protein using the vector pEF-BOS. Transfection of the human colon cancer Caco-2 cells with cDNAs for Noxo1 and Noxa1 was performed with Cell Line Nucleofector® Kit T (Amaxa) using the Nucleofector® apparatus (Amaxa), according to the manufacturer's instruction.

Estimation of Oxidase Proteins Expressed in HeLa, Caco-2, and CHO Cells—Total cell lysates of HeLa, Caco-2, and CHO cells were used for estimation of expression of Noxo1, Noxa1, p47phox, and p67phox. The lysates were subjected to SDS-PAGE, transferred to a polyvinylidene difluoride membrane (Millipore), and probed with an anti-HA monoclonal antibody (Covance Research Products), an anti-myc monoclonal antibody (Roche Diagnostics), an anti-FLAG monoclonal antibody (Sigma), anti-p22phox polyclonal antibodies (Santa Cruz Biotechnology), an anti-Rac monoclonal antibody (BD Biosciences), or an anti-Cdc42 monoclonal antibody (BD Transduction Laboratories). The blots were developed using ECL Plus (Amersham Biosciences) for visualization of the antibodies, as previously described (42, 50).


Figure 2
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 2.
Superoxide production by electropermeabilized HeLa cells, which ectopically express Nox1, Noxo1, and Noxa1. A and B, HeLa cells were transfected simultaneously with pcDNA3.0-Nox1, pEF-BOS-HA-Noxo1, and pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1. The cells were electrically permeabilized in the presence or absence of GTP{gamma}S (0.5 mM) (A) or in the presence of GTP{gamma}S (0.5 mM) or GTPbetaS (2.5 mM) (B). After preincubation of the permeabilized cells for 20 min at 37 °C, chemiluminescence change was continuously monitored with DIOGENES, and superoxide dismutase (SOD) (50 µg/ml) was added where indicated. C, HeLa cells were transfected simultaneously with the indicated plasmids: pcDNA3.0-Nox1, pEF-BOS-HA-Noxo1, pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1, pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1(R103E), and/or pEF-BOS-myc-Rac1. The transfected cells were electropermeabilized in the presence of GTP{gamma}S (0.5 mM). After preincubation of the permeabilized cells for 20 min at 37 °C, chemiluminescence change was measured for 10 min with DIOGENES. Each graph represents the mean ± S.D. of the chemiluminescence values integrated for 10 min, which were obtained from three independent transfections.

 
Superoxide Production by Electropermeabilized HeLa Cells Expressing Nox1, Noxo1, and Noxa1—The transfected HeLa cells were cultured for 30 h, and harvested by incubation with trypsin/EDTA for 1 min at 37 °C. Cell permeabilization was performed by the method of Grinstein and Furuya (59) with minor modifications. Briefly, the cells were suspended in an electroporation buffer (140 mM KCl, 1.0 mM MgCl2, 0.2 mM CaCl2, 1.0 mM EGTA, 1.0 mM NADPH, and 10 mM Hepes, pH 7.4) containing 0.5 mM GTP{gamma}S or 2.5 mM GDPbetaS, and transferred to a Bio-Rad Gene Pulser and permeabilized with a discharge of 5 kV/cm from a 25-µF capacitor. After being washed with the electroporation buffer, the cells were tested for estimation of the superoxide producing activity. The activity was determined by superoxide dismutase-inhibitable chemiluminescence with an enhancer-containing luminol-based detection system (DIOGENES; National Diagnostics), as previously described (42, 50, 58). The chemiluminescence was assayed at 37 °C using a luminometer (Auto Lumat LB953; EG&G Berthold).

Superoxide Production by Cells Expressing Nox1 or gp91phox— The transfected cells were cultured for 30 h, and harvested by incubation with trypsin/EDTA for 1 min at 37 °C. After being washed with Hepes-buffered saline (120 mM NaCl, 5 mM KCl, 5 mM glucose, 1 mM MgCl2, 0.5 mM CaCl2, and 17 mM Hepes, pH 7.4), the cells were suspended at the concentration of 8 x 105 cells/ml (HeLa and CHO cells) or 2 x 105 cells/ml (Caco-2 cells), and preincubated for 5 min at 37 °C. The superoxide producing activity was determined by superoxide dismutase-inhibitable chemiluminescence with DIOGENES. The chemiluminescence was measured for 10 min at 37 °C using the luminometer. For estimation of superoxide production by gp91phox/Nox2, the transfected cells were stimulated with phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (Research Biochemicals International) at 200 ng/ml (50, 58).

RNA Interference (RNAi) for Knockdown of Rac1 and Cdc42— As double strand small interfering RNA (siRNA) targeting Rac1, the 25-nucleotide modified synthetic RNA (RAC1 Validated Stealth® RNAi) was purchased from Invitrogen and tentatively named Rac1 siRNA number 3. The sequences were as follows: 5'-AGGGUCUAGCCAUGGCUAAGGAGAU-3' (sense) and 5'-AUCUCCUUAGCCAUGGCUAGACCCU-3' (antisense). The following RNA, designated as Rac1 siRNA number 1, was designed for a coding region of Rac1: 5'-UCCGUGCAAAGUGGUAUCCUGAGGU-3' (sense) and 5'-ACCUCAGGAUACCACUUUGCACGGA-3' (antisense). The sequence of Rac1 siRNA number 2 corresponded to that of a 3'-untranslated region: 5'-CUUGGAACCUUUGUACGCUUUGCUC-3' (sense) and 5'-GAGCAAAGCGUACAAAGGUUCCAAG-3' (antisense). As a negative control for Rac1 siRNAs numbers 1 and 2 (cont 1), Medium GC Duplex of Stealth® RNAi Negative Control Duplexes (Invitrogen) was used. As a negative control for Rac1 siRNA number 3 (cont 2), the following RNA was used: 5'-AGGUGCUACGCAUGCGUAAGAGGAU (sense) and 5'-AUCCUCUUACGCAUGCGUAGCACCU-3' (antisense). As siRNA targeting Cdc42, two different RNA duplexes (CDC42 Validated Stealth® RNAi) were purchased from Invitrogen: 5'-CCUCUACUAUUGAGAAACUUGCCAA-3' (sense) and 5'-UUGGCAAGUUUCUCAAUAGUAGAGG-3' (antisense) as Cdc42 siRNA number 1; and 5'-UCCUUUCUUGCUUGUUGGGACUCAA-3' (sense) and 5'-UUGAGUCCCAACAAGCAAGAAAGGA-3' (antisense) as Cdc42 siRNA number 2. As a negative control for Cdc42 siRNAs, Low GC Duplex of Stealth® RNAi Negative Control Duplexes (Invitrogen) was used. The sequence of Rac3 siRNA corresponded to that of a coding region: 5'-CCUCCUUCGAGAAUGUUCGUGCCAA-3' (sense) and 5'-UUGGCACGAACAUUCUCGAAGGAGG-3' (antisense). As a negative control for Rac3 siRNA, Medium GC Duplex of Stealth® RNAi Negative Control Duplexes (Invitrogen) was used. Cells transfected with siRNA were cultured for 48 (HeLa cells) or 72 h (Caco-2 cells), and used for estimation of protein levels and superoxide producing activities.

Two-hybrid Experiments—Various combinations between pGBT9 (Clontech) and pGADGH (Clontech) plasmids, each encoding an oxidase protein, were cotransformed into competent yeast HF7c cells containing a HIS3 reporter gene, as previously described (27, 42). Following the selection for Trp+ and Leu+ phenotype, the transformants were tested for their ability to grow on plates lacking histidine, according to the manufacturer's recommendation (Clontech).


Figure 3
View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 3.
Effect of RNAi-mediated Rac silencing on Nox1-dependent superoxide production by HeLa or Caco-2 cells. HeLa cells (A-C) or Caco-2 cells (D) were transfected with Rac1-specific siRNA (#1, #2, and #3) or control RNA (cont 1 and cont 2) and simultaneously with the indicated plasmids: pcDNA3.0-Nox1, pEF-BOS-Flag-Nox1, pEF-BOS-HA-Noxo1, pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1, and/or pEF-BOS-myc-Rac1(Q61L). After preincubation of the transfected, unpermeabilized cells for 5 min, superoxide production was assayed by chemiluminescence using DIOGENES. Each graph represents the mean ± S.D. of the chemiluminescence values integrated for 10 min, which were obtained from three independent transfections. Protein levels of endogenous Rac, HA-tagged Noxo1, myc-tagged Noxa1, and FLAG-tagged Nox1 were estimated by immunoblot analysis with the anti-Rac, anti-HA, anti-myc, and anti-FLAG monoclonal antibodies, respectively.

 
An in Vitro Binding Assay Using Purified Proteins—The wild-type and mutant Rac1 cDNAs were ligated to pGEX-6P (Amersham Biosciences) for gluthathione S-transferase (GST) fusion protein. The proteins expressed in Escherichia coli strain BL-21 (Stratagene) were purified by glutathione-Sepharose 4B (Amersham Biosciences) and cleaved with PreScission Protease (Amersham Biosciences), according to the manufacturer's protocols. For in vitro pulldown binding assays, Rac was mixed with GST-Pak-PBD or GST alone in 400 µl of 100 mM NaCl and 20 mM Tris, pH 7.6, and incubated for 30 min at 4 °C. A slurry of glutathione-Sepharose 4B was subsequently added, followed by further incubation for 60 min at 4 °C. After washing four times with 100 mM NaCl and 20 mM Tris, pH 7.6, containing 0.5% Triton X-100 and 10 mM dithiothreitol, proteins were eluted from glutathione-Sepharose 4B with 10 mM glutathione in 100 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, and 200 mM NaCl. The eluates were subjected to SDS-PAGE, and stained with Coomassie Brilliant Blue.

Estimation of Rac Activation in HeLa Cells—Rac activation in HeLa cells was estimated as previously described (55). Briefly, HeLa cells were broken by the addition of the same volume of a lysis buffer (20 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 0.5% Triton X-100, 2 mM MgCl2, 5 mM EGTA, 20 µM leupeptin, 15 µM pepstatin A, 0.8 µM aprotinin, 1 µM 4-(2-aminoethyl)benzenesulfonyl fluoride, 36 µM bestatin, and 14 µM cysteine protease inhibitor E64). The lysate was centrifuged for 20 s at 12,000 x g, and the supernatant was incubated with GST-Pak-PBD for 15 min in the absence or presence of GTP{gamma}S (0.1 mM) or GDPbetaS (1 mM). Proteins were precipitated with glutathione-Sepharose 4B (Amersham Biosciences), and the precipitants were analyzed by immunoblot with the anti-Rac antibody.

Membrane Localization of Noxa1 in HeLa Cells—Membrane fractions were prepared by the method of Leusen et al. (21, 23) with minor modifications. Briefly, transfected HeLa cells were lysed by sonication, and the sonicate (1.0 ml) was layered on a discontinuous sucrose gradient consisting of 1.5 ml of 15% (w/v) sucrose and 2.0 ml of 40% (w/v) sucrose with 1.0 mM MgCl2, 40 mM NaCl, and 0.5 mM EGTA. After ultracentrifugation for 1 h at 170,000 x g, the layer between the 15 and 40% sucrose fractions were collected and used as the membrane fraction, which were analyzed by immunoblot with the anti-HA monoclonal antibody, the anti-myc monoclonal antibody, the anti-p22phox polyclonal antibodies, or anti-integrin beta1 polyclonal antibodies (Santa Cruz Biotechnology).


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Electropermeabilized HeLa Cells, Which Ectopically Express Nox1, Noxo1, and Noxa1, Produce Superoxide in a GTP-dependent Manner—It is well known that electrically permeabilized neutrophils, which highly express gp91phox, produce superoxide in a GTP-dependent manner (60, 61). To know role of GTP-binding proteins in Nox1 activity, we tested the effect of GTP. HeLa cells, ectopically expressing Nox1 and its activating proteins Noxo1 and Noxa1, produced superoxide (data not shown), as previously shown in other types of cells (42, 50, 58). When the cells were electropermeabilized in the absence of GTP{gamma}S, no superoxide was produced (Fig. 2A). In the presence of GTP{gamma}S, on the other hand, they produced a substantial amount of superoxide (Fig. 2A): the rate of superoxide production by permeabilized cells was about two times higher than that of intact cells. When GDPbetaS was used instead of GTP{gamma}S, only a negligible amount of superoxide was detected (Fig. 2B). GTP{gamma}S seems to act inside the cells, because this agent did not induce superoxide production in non-permeabilized cells (data not shown). The GTP-dependent superoxide production is likely catalyzed by Nox1, as supported by the finding that the production absolutely required expression of the three indispensable components of the Nox1-based oxidase: Nox1, Noxo1, and Noxa1 (Fig. 2C). Essentially the same results were obtained when CHO cells were used instead of HeLa cells (data not shown): in the case of CHO cells, the p22phox cDNA was simultaneously transfected, since these cells scarcely contain endogenous mRNA for p22phox; on the other hand, HeLa cells fully express the p22phox mRNA. Thus the superoxide producing activity of Nox1 appears to be controlled in a manner dependent on a GTP-binding protein.


Figure 4
View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 4.
Effect of sequestration of Rac on Nox1-dependent superoxide production by HeLa or Caco-2 cells. Caco-2 cells (A) or HeLa cells (B) were cotransfected with the indicated plasmids: pEF-BOS-Flag-RhoGDI, pEF-BOS-Flag-Pak-PBD, pEF-BOS-HA-Noxo1, pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1, and/or pcDNA3.0-Nox1. C, HeLa cells were transfected with Cdc42-specific siRNA (#1 and #2) or control RNA (cont) and simultaneously with pcDNA3.0-Nox1, pEF-BOS-HA-Noxo1, and pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1. After preincubation of the transfected, unpermeabilized cells for 5 min, superoxide production was assayed by chemiluminescence using DIOGENES. Each graph represents the mean ± S.D. of the chemiluminescence values integrated for 10 min, which were obtained from three independent transfections. Protein levels of the indicated proteins were estimated by immunoblot analysis with the anti-FLAG, anti-Rac, anti-Cdc42, anti-HA, or anti-myc monoclonal antibody.

 
Rac Is Involved in Nox1-dependent Superoxide Production— We have previously shown that Rac, but not Cdc42, binds to the TPR-containing region of Noxa1, and the binding is abolished when Arg-103 in the third TPR is substituted with Glu (Ref. 42; see Fig. 1). A mutant Noxa1 carrying this substitution was about 4-fold less effective in the GTP-dependent superoxide production by Nox1 than the wild-type mutant (Fig. 2C), suggesting that Rac is involved in Nox1 regulation.

To further study the role of Rac in Nox1 activation, we specifically knocked down Rac1, the predominant Rac isoform in non-hematopoietic cells, using the RNAi method, and tested its effect on Nox1-dependent superoxide production by intact cells. Transfection of HeLa cells with three different double-strand siRNA, each specific to human Rac1, led to a significant decrease in Rac at the protein level, as estimated by immunoblot analysis using an anti-Rac monoclonal antibody (Fig. 3A). On the other hand, the treatment did not affect the Noxo1 and Noxa1 proteins (Fig. 3A). The siRNA-treated cells produced a small amount of superoxide, as compared with the cells transfected with the control RNAs (Fig. 3A). When Rac1 siRNA number 2, targeted to a 3'-untranslated region, was used (see "Experimental Procedures"), superoxide production was restored by transfection of the cDNA encoding the constitutively active form of Rac1(Q61L), which lacks the 3'-untranslated region and thus mRNA derived from the cDNA is expected to be unaffected by the siRNA (Fig. 3B). Thus the effect of the siRNA is due to a reduced level of Rac protein. To exclude the possibility that the RNAi decreases in the protein level of Nox1, we expressed Nox1 as a FLAG-tagged protein and detected the protein with an anti-FLAG antibody. As shown in Fig. 3C, the RNAi did not affect Nox1 at the protein level. We also tested the effect of the RNAi in Caco-2 cells, which endogenously express Nox1; the cells produce superoxide when both Noxo1 and Noxa1 are ectopically expressed (47). The Rac1 RNAi in Caco-2 cells resulted in an impaired production of superoxide (Fig. 3D). On the other hand, transfection of siRNA specific to Rac3 did not affect the amount of Rac protein and the superoxide producing activity in HeLa cells (data not shown). These findings indicate that endogenous Rac1 participates in Nox1 activity.

To further know the role of endogenous Rac, we studied the effect of RhoGDI, which forms a complex with Rho family GTPases including Rac and thus blocks their functions (62). Expression of RhoGDI in Caco-2 cells (Fig. 4A) and HeLa cells (Fig. 4B) inhibited Nox1-dependent production of superoxide. Similarly, the Nox1 activity was blocked by Pak-PBD (Fig. 4A), the Rac/Cdc42-binding domain of the protein kinase Pak, which is known to inhibit Rac-dependent events (63). These effects do not appear to result from the blockade of Cdc42, because knockdown of Cdc42 by RNAi did not affect the Nox1-dependent superoxide production (Fig. 4C).

We also tested the effect of ectopic expression of Rac1 as myc-tagged proteins. Rac1(Q61L) enhanced superoxide production by about 2-fold in HeLa cells containing Nox1 (Fig. 5A). On the other hand, neither a constitutively active Cdc42 (Q61L) (Fig.5B)norRhoA(Q63L)(datanotshown)couldfacilitateNox1-dependent superoxide production. In addition, a dominant negative form of Rac1(T17N) as well as the wild-type Rac1 was incapable of activating Nox1 (Fig. 5A). Under the conditions, the ratio of ectopically expressed Rac to endogenous Rac was 1:2 in transfected HeLa cells, as estimated by immunoblot analysis using the anti-Rac antibody. Low expression levels of the transfected proteins relative to endogenous Rac levels may, in part, explain the reason why Rac1(T17N) fails to inhibit the Nox1 activity (Fig. 5A). The present findings thus indicate that Rac in the GTP-bound active form specifically participates in Nox1 activation.


Figure 5
View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 5.
Effect of expression of the active Rac mutants on Nox1-dependent superoxide production. A, B, and D, HeLa cells were cotransfected with the indicated plasmids: pcDNA3.0-Nox1, pEF-BOS-HA-Noxo1, pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1, pcDNA3.0-gp91phox/Nox2, pEF-BOS-HA-p47phox, pEF-BOS-myc-p67phox, pEF-BOS-myc-Rac1(wt), pEF-BOS-myc-Rac1(Q61L), pEF-BOS-myc-Rac1(A27K/Q61L), pEF-BOS-myc-Rac1(Y40C/Q61L), pEF-BOS-myc-Rac1(T17N), pEF-BOS-myc-Cdc42(Q61L), and/or pEF-BOS-myc-Cdc42(T17N). After preincubation of the transfected, unpermeabilized cells for 5 min, superoxide production was assayed by chemiluminescence using DIOGENES. Each graph represents the mean ± S.D. of the chemiluminescence values integrated for 10 min, which were obtained from three independent transfections. Protein levels of the indicated proteins were estimated by immunoblot analysis with the anti-HA or anti-myc monoclonal antibody. C, HeLa cells were lysed, and proteins in the lysate were precipitated in the presence or absence of GTP{gamma}S (0.1 mM) or GDPbetaS (1 mM) with GST-Pak-PBD bound to glutathione-Sepharose 4B beads. Rac in the precipitant or the whole cell lysate was estimated by immunoblot analysis with the anti-Rac monoclonal antibody. The experiments have been repeated more than three times with similar results. E, interaction of the active Rac mutants with Noxa1 was estimated by the yeast two-hybrid system. The yeast HF7c cells were cotransformed with recombinant plasmids pGBT9 encoding Rac1(Q61L), Rac1(A27K/Q61L), Rac1(Y40C/Q61L), or Rac1(T17N) and pGADGH encoding the N terminus of Noxa1. Following the selection for Trp+ and Leu+ phenotype, its histidine dependent (right) and independent (left) growth was tested as described under "Experimental Procedures." F, GST alone or GST-Pak-PBD were incubated with the indicated form of Rac1, and pulled down with glutathione-Sepharose 4B. The precipitated proteins were subjected to SDS-PAGE, followed by staining with Coomassie Brilliant Blue. These experiments have been repeated more than three times with similar results.

 
Since Nox1 produced a substantial amount of superoxide without expression of Rac(Q61L) (Fig. 5A), it seems possible that endogenous Rac is at least partially active in unstimulated HeLa cells. To test this possibility, we pulled down the active GTP-bound form of Rac from the cell lysate using GST-Pak-PBD by a previously described method (57). As shown in Fig. 5C, a small but significant amount of Rac was precipitated, indicating that a part of Rac is in the active form in HeLa cells.

Interaction of Rac with Noxa1 Participates in Nox1 Activation— The observation that the mutant Noxa1(R103E) is much less effective in Nox1 activation than the wild-type Noxa1 (Fig. 2C) suggests that Rac functions via interacting with Noxa1. In addition, Rac1(Q61L) was incapable of activating Nox1 in the absence of Noxa1 (data not shown). To confirm the role of the Rac-Noxa1 interaction, we tested the ability of mutant Rac proteins to support superoxide production by Nox1.

It has been reported that A27K substitution in Rac results in a loss of the interaction with p67phox, although it does not seem to affect the ability to activate the protein kinase Pak, a molecule involved in a Cdc42/Rac-mediated signaling pathway (64). As expected, a GTPase-deficient active Rac with this substitution (A27K/Q61L) only marginally activated gp91phox/Nox2 in HeLa cells expressing p67phox and p47phox (Fig. 5D). Rac is considered to recognize Noxa1 in a way similar to that for p67phox, because Rac binding is abrogated by the substitution of Glu for Arg-102 of p67phox (27, 50), which corresponds to Arg-103 of Noxa1. Consistent with this, the mutant Rac1 carrying the A27K substitution failed to interact well with Noxa1 in the yeast two-hybrid system (Fig. 5E), but fully interacted with Pak (Fig. 5F). In addition, Rac1(A27K/Q61L) was incapable of enhancing superoxide production by Nox1 in HeLa cells (Fig. 5A), indicative of the role for the Rac-Noxa1 interaction.

It is also known that, although a mutant Rac1 carrying the Y40C substitution is incapable of binding to Pak and thus fails to activate this protein kinase (Ref. 65; and see Fig. 5F), it can interact with p67phox (65). As expected, a GTPase-deficient active Rac1 with this substitution (Y40C/Q61L) fully activated gp91phox/Nox2 in the p67phox and p47phox expressing cells (Fig. 5D). Rac1(Y40C/Q61L) was also capable of interacting with Noxa1 (Fig. 5E) and facilitating Nox1-dependent superoxide production (Fig. 5A). Thus Rac likely plays a positive regulatory role in Nox1 activation via interacting with Noxa1. Before directly addressing the question how the Rac-Noxa1 interaction functions, we investigated the mechanism whereby Noxa1 and its partner Noxo1 participate in Nox1 activation.


Figure 6
View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 6.
Role of interaction between Noxo1 and p22phox on Nox1-dependent superoxide production. CHO cells (A) or HeLa cells (B) were cotransfected with pcDNA3.0-Nox1 and pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1 and simultaneously with the indicated plasmids: the pEF-BOS vector, pEF-BOS-p22phox(wt), pEF-BOS-p22phox(P156Q), pEF-BOS-myc-Rac1(Q61L), pEF-BOS-HA-Noxo1(wt), and/or pEF-BOS-HA-Noxo1(W197R). After preincubation of the transfected, unpermeabilized cells for 5 min, superoxide production was assayed by chemiluminescence using DIOGENES. Each graph represents the mean ± S.D. of the chemiluminescence values integrated for 10 min, which were obtained from three independent transfections. Protein levels of the indicated proteins were estimated by immunoblot analysis with the anti-p22phox polyclonal, anti-myc monoclonal, or anti-HA monoclonal antibodies.

 
Noxa1 Is Recruited to the Membrane by Binding to Noxo1, Which Associates with p22phox—Nox1 likely forms a heterodimer with the membrane-integral protein p22phox (42-45). We have previously shown that expression of p22phox enhances Nox1-dependent superoxide production in CHO cells, which scarcely contain endogenous mRNA for p22phox (42), and that p22phox interacts with Noxo1 via binding to the tandem SH3 domains, which is abrogated by the P156Q substitution in p22phox (42). To clarify the role of the Noxo1-p22phox interaction in Nox1 activation, we expressed a mutant p22phox(P156Q) in CHO cells, and tested its ability to support superoxide production by Nox1. As shown in Fig. 6A, p22phox(P156Q) did not activate Nox1 under the conditions where the wild-type p22phox is fully active. Thus the Noxo1-p22phox interaction seems to be crucial for Nox1 activation. Consistent with this, Nox1 was not activated by a mutant Noxo1 carrying the W197R substitution in the N-terminal SH3 domain (Fig. 6B), which is incapable of binding to p22phox (50).

Since Noxa1 directly binds to Noxo1 via the Noxa1 SH3 domain (42), we investigated the role of the Noxa1-Noxo1 interaction in Nox1 activation. As shown in Fig. 7A, in the absence of Noxo1, Noxa1 did not localize to the membrane fraction that contained the membrane marker protein integrin beta1 and p22phox. On the other hand, expression of Noxo1 elicited membrane localization of Noxa1 in a dose-dependent manner (Fig. 7A). We next used a mutant Noxa1 carrying the W436R substitution in the SH3 domain, which results in a defective binding to Noxo1 (42). Noxa1(W436R) could not support superoxide production by Nox1 (Fig. 7B) or localize to the membrane (Fig. 7C) in the presence of Noxo1. Under these conditions, the wild-type Noxa1 and Noxa1(R103E) were targeted to the membrane (Fig. 7C). Thus Noxa1 binding to Noxo1 is required for membrane recruitment of Noxa1, which plays a crucial role in Nox1 activation.

Taken together, the present findings show that Noxa1 function requires its association with the membrane, which is mediated via binding of Noxa1 to Noxo1, a protein that is directly tethered to the Nox1 partner p22phox at the membrane.

The Rac-Noxa1 Interaction Is Involved in Membrane Recruitment of Noxa1 in the Absence of the Noxo1-Noxa1 Interaction— We next tested the role of Rac in membrane recruitment of Noxa1, which is crucial for Nox1 activation. The recruitment does not seem to require Rac in the presence of Noxo1, since it was not affected by depletion of Rac by RNAi (Fig. 8A). However, in the absence of Noxo1, membrane localization of Noxa1 was totally dependent on expression of Rac1(Q61L) (Fig. 8B). Rac likely functions by binding to Noxa1, because Noxa1(R103E), deficient in binding to Rac, failed to move to the membrane even in the presence of Rac1(Q61L) (Fig. 8B).

Although Noxa1(W436R), incapable of interacting with Noxo1, did not localize to the membrane in the absence of Rac1(Q61L) (Fig. 7C), expression of Rac1(Q61L) caused membrane association of Noxa1(W436R) to the same extent as that of the wild-type Noxa1 (Fig. 7D). Thus active Rac has an ability to fully recruit Noxa1 to the membrane even without the Noxa1-Noxo1 interaction. In parallel with this, when Rac1(Q61L) was co-expressed, Noxa1(W436R) supported Nox1 activation as much as the wild-type protein (Fig. 7B). By contrast, a doubly mutated Noxa1 with R103E/W436R substitution, which can bind neither Rac nor Noxo1, was incapable of associating with the membrane (Fig. 7D) or supporting Nox1 activation (Fig. 7B) even in the presence of Rac1(Q61L). These findings indicate that Rac directly binds to Noxa1 and thus facilitates membrane recruitment of this protein, an effect that is cryptic in the presence of Noxa1-Noxo1 interaction, and that the Rac-mediated recruitment plays a crucial role in Nox1 activation. However, Noxa1 recruitment by itself is not enough for Nox1 activation: in the absence of Noxo1, expression of Rac1(Q61L) led to membrane targeting of Noxa1 (Fig. 8C) but did not induce superoxide production (data not shown). These findings also suggest that the role of Noxo1 is not restricted to membrane recruitment of Noxa1.


Figure 7
View larger version (55K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 7.
Role of the Noxa1-Noxo1 interaction on Noxa1 membrane localization and Nox1-dependent superoxide production. A, HeLa cells were transfected simultaneously with pcDNA3.0-Nox1 (1.0 µg), pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1 (1.0 µg), and the indicated amount of pEF-BOS-HA-Noxo1. After preincubation of the transfected, unpermeabilized cells for 5 min, superoxide production was assayed by chemiluminescence using DIOGENES. Each graph represents the mean ± S.D. of the chemiluminescence values integrated for 10 min, which were obtained from three independent transfections. Protein levels in the whole cell lysate or the membrane fraction were estimated by immunoblot analysis with the anti-HA and anti-myc monoclonal antibodies. The membrane fraction was also analyzed with anti-p22phox polyclonal antibodies or with the anti-integrin beta1 (a membrane marker protein) polyclonal antibodies as a loading control. B-D, HeLa cells were cotransfected with pcDNA3.0-Nox1, pEF-BOS-HA-Noxo1, and pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1(wt), pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1(R103E), pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1(W436R), or pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1(R103E/W436R), and simultaneously with or without pEF-BOS-myc-Rac1(Q61L). Superoxide production (B) was assayed as described in A. Protein levels in the whole cell lysate (B) or those in the membrane fraction of cells with (D) or without (C) Rac1(Q61L) were analyzed by immunoblot with the anti-Rac, anti-HA, or anti-myc monoclonal antibody, and also with the anti-p22phox or anti-integrin beta1 (a membrane marker protein) polyclonal antibodies as a loading control. These experiments have been repeated more than three times with similar results.

 
It is known that Rac localizes to the membrane via the geranylgeranyl group linked to Cys-189 (66). The C189S substitution in Rac1, leading to a loss of the modification, resulted in an impaired membrane association (Fig. 8, C-E). Mutant Rac1(Q61L/C189S) failed to elicit membrane recruitment of the wild-type Noxa1 in the absence of Noxo1 (Fig. 8C) or that of Noxa1(W436R) in the presence of Noxo1 (Fig. 8D). Thus membrane localization of Rac is required for Rac-dependent Noxa1 recruitment.

Rac-Noxa1 Interaction Plays a Role in Nox1 Activation at the Membrane—Although the mutant Noxa1(R103E) was fully recruited to the membrane (Fig. 6B), it failed to support superoxide production by Nox1, indicating that Rac functions with Noxa1 at the membrane. This is supported by the finding that the mutant Rac1(Q61L/C189S), defective in membrane targeting, was incapable of enhancing Nox1 activity (Fig. 8E). In activation of gp91phox/Nox2, Noxa1 as well as p67phox functions not only by interacting with Rac but also by using the activation domain C-terminal to the Rac-binding TPR domain (Fig. 1): V205A substitution in the activation domain leads to an impaired activation of gp91phox (50, 67). In the case of p67phox, Rac binding to the TPR domain is considered to induce a conformational change of the activation domain, leading to gp91phox activation (12-14). The mutant Noxa1(V205A) as well as Noxa1(R103E) was inactive in Nox1 activation in HeLa cells (Fig. 9A) and Caco-2 cells (Fig. 9B), indicating a crucial role of the Noxa1 activation domain. Importantly, Noxa1(V205A) was fully targeted to the membrane in a manner independent of the presence of Rac1(Q61L) (Fig. 9, C and D). Thus Rac appears to function in Nox1 activation via rendering the Noxa1 activation domain in a functional state.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
In the present study, we show that the small GTPase Rac is directly involved in activation of Nox1. Rac appears to function by interacting with the oxidase activator Noxa1. The Rac-Noxa1 interaction at the membrane plays a crucial role in Nox1 activation, which possibly induces a conformational change of the activation domain of Noxa1. Membrane recruitment of Noxa1, an event that is crucial for Nox1 activation, is normally dependent on association of Noxa1 with the oxidase organizer Noxo1. In the absence of sufficient interaction between Noxo1 and Noxa1, the recruitment requires the binding of Rac to Noxa1, suggesting that Rac functions partly by facilitating membrane localization of Noxa1.


Figure 8
View larger version (62K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 8.
Role of Rac on Noxa1 membrane localization and Nox1-dependent superoxide production. A, HeLa cells were treated with siRNAs for Rac1 as described in the legend to Fig. 3A. The whole cell lysate (1.5 µg of protein; equivalent to 1.5 x 104 cells) or the membrane fraction (3.0µg of protein; equivalent to 3 x 105 cells) was analyzed by immunoblot with the anti-Rac, anti-HA, or anti-myc monoclonal antibody, and also with the anti-p22phox or anti-integrin beta1 (a membrane marker protein) polyclonal antibodies as a loading control. B-E, HeLa cells were cotransfected with the indicated plasmids: pcDNA3.0-Nox1, pEF-BOS-HA-Noxo1, pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1(wt), pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1(R103E), pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1(W436R), pEF-BOS-myc-Rac1(wt), pEF-BOS-myc-Rac1(Q61L), and/or pEF-BOS-myc-Rac1(Q61L/C189S). Protein levels in the membrane fraction of cells without Noxo1 (B and C) or cells containing Noxo1 and Noxa1(W436R) (D) or Noxa1(wt) (E) were analyzed by immunoblot with the anti-Rac, anti-HA, or anti-myc monoclonal antibody, and also with the anti-p22phox or anti-integrin beta1 (a membrane marker protein) polyclonal antibodies as a loading control. After preincubation of the transfected, unpermeabilized cells for 5 min, superoxide production was assayed by chemiluminescence using DIOGENES: each graph represents the mean ± S.D. of the chemiluminescence values integrated for 10 min, which were obtained from three independent transfections (E). These experiments have been repeated more than three times with similar results.

 
The role of Rac in Nox1 activation has been suggested by previous observations: blockade of the conversion of Rac to the GTP-bound state inhibits Nox1-dependent superoxide production in guinea pig gastric mucosal cells, in which inhibition is restored by expression of Rac1(Q61L) (54); and both Rac activation and Nox1-dependent ROS production are down-regulated in cells depleted of the Rac activator betaPix by RNAi (53). The involvement of Rac is also supported by the present finding that superoxide production by HeLa cells, ectopically expressing Nox1, Noxo1, and Noxa1, or by Caco-2 cells containing endogenous Nox1 is significantly decreased when Rac is depleted by RNAi-mediated gene silencing (Fig. 3) or sequestered by RhoGDI or Pak-PBD (Fig. 4). In addition, a part of Rac in unstimulated HeLa cells appears to be in the active form (Fig. 5), which may explain at least partially the reason why Nox1 constitutively produce superoxide. On the other hand, it has remained obscure whether Rac is directly involved in the active, fully assembled Nox1 complex, as in the phagocyte oxidase complex, or indirectly activates Nox1 via acting in an upstream signaling pathway, e.g. a Pak-containing pathway.

The present study demonstrates that Rac directly participates in formation of the active Nox1 complex via binding to Noxa1. Superoxide production by Nox1 in electrically permeabilized HeLa cells is entirely dependent on GTP (Fig. 2). The production is abrogated when the mutant Noxa1(R103E), defective in binding to Rac, is expressed instead of the wild-type one. Furthermore, although expression of the constitutively active Rac1(Q61L) leads to enhancement of Nox1-dependent superoxide production, the enhancement is not observed with the mutant Rac1(A27K/Q61L), defective in binding to Noxa1 (Fig. 5). In addition, the mutant Rac1(Y40C/Q61L), which can bind to Noxa1 but not to Pak, enhances the Nox1 activity (Fig. 5), supporting the conclusion that Rac is directly involved in Nox1 activation rather than via a Pak-containing signaling pathway. It has been reported that Rac can directly bind to the C-terminal region of Nox1 in a GTP-dependent manner (53). This binding may function to activate Nox1 in cooperation with the Rac-Noxa1 interaction. During the course of the revision of our paper, two other groups have also shown the direct role of Rac in Nox1 activation (68, 69).

The Rac-Noxa1 interaction appears to serve at two distinct steps: support of membrane recruitment of Noxa1 and induction of a conformational change of Noxa1 for Nox1 activation. For both steps, membrane targeting of Rac appears to be required, because Rac1(Q61L/C189S), defective in membrane localization, fails to recruit Noxa1 to the membrane and to support superoxide production (Fig. 8).


Figure 9
View larger version (55K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 9.
Effect of the V205A substitution of Noxa1 on Noxa1 membrane localization and Nox1-dependent superoxide production. A, C, and D, HeLa cells were cotransfected with the indicated plasmids: pcDNA3.0-Nox1, pEF-BOS-HA-Noxo1, pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1(wt), pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1(V205A), pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1(R103E), and/or pEF-BOS-myc-Rac1(Q61L). After preincubation of the transfected, unpermeabilized cells for 5 min, superoxide production was assayed by chemiluminescence using DIOGENES: each graph represents the mean ± S.D. of the chemiluminescence values integrated for 10 min, which were obtained from three independent transfections (A). The whole cell lysate was analyzed by immunoblot with the anti-HA or anti-myc monoclonal antibody (A). Protein levels in the membrane fraction of cells with (D) or without (C) Rac1(Q61L) were analyzed by immunoblot with the anti-Rac, anti-HA, or anti-myc monoclonal antibody, and also with the anti-p22phox or anti-integrin beta1 (a membrane marker protein) polyclonal antibodies as a loading control. B, Caco-2 cells were cotransfected with pEF-BOS-HA-Noxo1, and pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1(wt), pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1(R103E), pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1(V205A), or pEF-BOS-myc-Noxa1(W436R). Superoxide production and protein levels of whole cell lysate were estimated as described in A. These experiments have been repeated more than three times with similar results.

 
Membrane recruitment of Noxa1 appears to act as a crucial step for activation of Nox1, as shown for the first time in the present study. Noxa1 seems to reside on the membrane primarily via interacting with Noxo1; Noxa1 fails to associate with the membrane in the absence of Noxo1. The interaction is mediated by binding of the Noxa1 SH3 domain to the Noxo1 C terminus (Ref. 42; see Fig. 1). When the interaction is disrupted by the W436R substitution in the Noxa1 SH3 domain, both Noxa1 membrane localization and Nox1-dependent superoxide production are abrogated (Fig. 7). On the other hand, Noxo1 is tethered to p22phox, the membrane partner of Nox1, via the SH3-mediated association (Ref. 42; see Fig. 1), which is required for Nox1 activation (Fig. 6). Thus Noxa1 is linked by Noxo1 to the membrane. In the presence of sufficient interaction between Noxa1 and Noxo1, the requirement of Rac for Noxa1 membrane recruitment is cryptic, although Rac is still necessary for Nox1 activation (Fig. 7). On the other hand, once the Noxa1-Noxo1 interaction is disrupted, both membrane targeting of Noxa1 and activation of Nox1 become largely dependent on active Rac (Fig. 7). This indicates an important role of Rac, and also raises the possibility that the balance between Noxa1 and Noxo1 determines the extent of Rac contribution. It is known that the expression pattern of Noxa1 is different from that of Noxo1 (42, 46, 47). A role for Rac in membrane recruitment of p67phox has been shown under cell-free conditions: when excessive amounts of Rac and p67phox are present, activation of gp91phox/Nox2 is possible without p47phox in a cell-free system, suggestive of the role for Rac (70, 71); and Rac indeed recruits p67phox to the membrane prepared from macrophages in vitro (35).

In addition to the step for membrane recruitment of Noxa1, Rac appears to play another direct role in Nox1 activation: Noxa1(R103E), defective in binding to Rac, is incapable of activating Nox1, although it is fully targeted to the membrane (Fig. 7). Rac likely binds to Noxa1 in a manner similar to that for the binding to p67phox, because Rac fails to bind to a mutant p67phox with substitution of Glu for Arg-102 (27), in which the residue corresponds to Arg-103 of Noxa1. In addition, Rac1(Y40C), defective in binding to Pak, is capable of binding to Noxa1 (Fig. 5) as well as p67phox (65), whereas Rac1(A27K) interacts with neither Noxa1 nor p67phox. Since the Rac-p67phox interaction is considered to induce a conformational change of the p67phox activation domain, leading to activation of gp91phox/Nox2 (14, 33-35), it seems possible that Noxa1 also undergoes a conformational change of its activation domain for Nox1 activation, via binding to Rac. Consistent with this, a mutant Noxa1 carrying the substitution of Ala for Val-205 in the activation domain is inactive in Nox1 activation, although it is fully localized to the membrane (Fig. 9).

Rac is thus involved in Nox1 activation; however, it is presently unclear whether this GTPase is absolutely required. Even when most of Rac (more than 90%) is depleted by RNAi, the siRNA-treated cells produce about half an amount of superoxide compared with untreated cells (Fig. 3). In addition, Noxa1(R103E) exerts a weak but significant effect on Nox1 activation (Figs. 2 and 7), whereas this mutant Noxa1 is completely inactive in gp91phox/Nox2 activation (50, 67).

In addition to a crucial role of Noxo1 in Noxa1 membrane localization, Noxo1 also appears to function at another step required for Nox1 activation. Without Noxo1, Nox1 fails to produce superoxide, even though Noxa1 is recruited to the membrane by Rac1(Q61L) (Fig. 8). On the other hand, although Noxa1(W436R) is capable of activating Nox1 in the presence of Noxo1, this mutant protein is targeted to the membrane by Rac1(Q61L) in a manner independent of Noxo1 (Fig. 7).


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported in part by Grant-in-aid for Scientific Research and National Project on Protein Structural and Functional Analyses from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, and CREST and BIRD projects of JST (Japan Science and Technology Agency). The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement"in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Back

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 81-92-642-6806; Fax: 81-92-642-6807; E-mail: hsumi{at}bioreg.kyushu-u.ac.jp.

2 The abbreviations used are: ROS, reactive oxygen species; Nox, NAD(P)H oxidase; PRR, proline-rich region; TPR, tetratricopeptide repeat; Noxo1, Nox organizer 1; Noxa1, Nox activator 1; Pak-PBD, the p21-binding domain of the protein kinase Pak; GTP{gamma}S, guanosine 5'-({gamma}-thio)triphosphate; GDPbetaS, guanosine 5'-(beta-thio)diphosphate; siRNA, small interfering RNA; RNAi, RNA interference; HA, hemagglutinin; CHO, Chinese hamster ovary; SH3, Src homology domain 3; GST, glutathione S-transferase. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We are grateful to Yohko Kage (Kyushu University and JST), Miki Matsuo (Kyushu University), Natsuko Yoshiura (Kyushu University), and Namiko Kubo (Kyushu University and JST) for technical assistance, and Minako Nishino (Kyushu University and JST) for secretarial assistance.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Bokoch, G. M., and Knaus, U. G. (2003) Trends Biochem. Sci. 28, 502-508[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Lambeth, J. D. (2004) Nat. Rev. Immunol. 4, 181-189[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Geiszt, M., and Leto, T. L. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 51715-51718[Free Full Text]
  4. Werner, E. (2004) J. Cell Sci. 117, 143-153[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Sumimoto, H., Miyano, K., and Takeya, R. (2005) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 338, 677-686[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Quinn, M. T., and Gauss, K. A. (2004) J. Leukocyte Biol. 76, 760-781[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Nauseef, W. M. (2004) Histochem. Cell Biol. 122, 277-291[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Cross, A. R., and Segal, A. W. (2004) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1657, 1-22[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Groemping, Y., and Rittinger, K. (2005) Biochem. J. 386, 401-416[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Koshkin, V., Lotan, O., and Pick, E. (1997) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1319, 139-146[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Cross, A. W., Erickson, R. W., and Curnutte, J. T. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 15519-15525[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Diebold, B. A., and Bokoch, G. M. (2001) Nat. Immunol. 2, 211-215[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Nisimoto, Y., Motalebi, S., Han, C.-H., and Lambeth, J. D. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 22999-23005[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Sarfstein, R., Gorzalczany, Y., Mizrahi, A., Berdichevsky, Y., Molshanski-Mor, S., Weinbaum, C., Hirshberg, M., Dagher, M.-C., and Pick, E. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 16007-16016[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Hashida, S., Yuzawa, S., Suzuki, N. N., Fujioka, Y., Takikawa, T., Sumimoto, H., Inagaki, F., and Fujii, H. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 26378-2638610[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Sumimoto, H., Kage, Y., Nunoi, H., Sasaki, H., Nose, T., Fukumaki, Y., Ohno, M., Minakami, S., and Takeshige, K. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91, 5345-5349[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Leto, T. L., Adams, A. G., and de Mendez, I. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91, 10650-10654[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Groemping, Y., Lapouge, K., Smerdon, S. J., and Rittinger, K. (2003) Cell 113, 345-355
  19. Nobuhisa, I., Takeya, R., Ogura, K., Ueno, N., Kohda, D., Inagaki, F., and Sumimoto, H. (2006) Biochem. J. 396, 183-192[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Dinauer, M. C., Pierce, E. A., Erickson, R. W., Muhlebach, T. J., Messner, H., Orkin, S. H., Seger, R. A., and Curnutte, J. T. (1991) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 88, 11231-11235[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Leusen, J. H., Bolscher, B. G., Hilarius, P. M., Weening, R. S., Kaulfersch, W., Seger, R. A., Roos, D., and Verhoeven, A. J. (1994) J. Exp. Med. 180, 2329-2334[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Finan, P., Shimizu, Y., Gout, I., Hsuan, J., Truong, O., Butcher, C., Bennett, P., Waterfield, M. D., and Kellie, S. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 13752-13755[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Leusen, J. H., Fluiter, K., Hilarius, P. M., Roos, D., Verhoeven, A. J., and Bolscher, B. G. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 11216-11221[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Morozov, I., Lotan, O., Joseph, G., Gorzalczany, Y., and Pick, E. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 15435-15444[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Kami, K., Takeya, R., Sumimoto, H., and Kohda, D. (2002) EMBO J. 21, 4268-4276[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Mizuki, K., Takeya, R., Kuribayashi, F., Nobuhisa, I., Kohda, D., Nunoi, H., Takeshige, K., and Sumimoto, H. (2005) Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 444, 185-194[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Koga, H., Terasawa, H., Nunoi, H., Takeshige, K., Inagaki, F., and Sumimoto, H. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 25051-25060[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Lapouge, K., Smith, S. J. M., Walker, P. A., Gamblin, S. J., Smerdon, S. J., and Rittinger, K. (2000) Mol. Cell 6, 899-907[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Price, M. O., McPhail, L. C., Lambeth, J. D., Han, C.-H., Knaus, U. G., and Dinauer, M. C. (2002) Blood 99, 2653-2661[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Biberstine-Kinkade, K. J., Yu, L., Stull, N., LeRoy, B., Bennett, S., Cross, A., and Dinauer, M. C. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 30368-30374[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Miyano, K., Ogasawara, S., Han, C. H., Fukuda, H., and Tamura, M. (2001) Biochemistry 40, 14089-14097[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Hata, K., Takeshige, K., and Sumimoto, H. (1997) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 241, 226-231[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Han, C.-H., Freeman, J. L. R., Lee, T., Motalebi, S. A., and Lambeth, J. D. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 16663-16668[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Alloul, N., Gorzalczany, Y., Itan, M., Sigal, N., and Pick, E. (2001) Biochemistry 40, 14557-14566[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Gorzalczany, Y., Alloul, N., Sigal, N., Weinbaum, C. K., and Pick, E. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 18605-18610[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Suh, Y. A., Arnold, R. S., Lassegue, B., Shi, J., Xu, X., Sorescu, D., Chung, A. B., Griendling, K. K., and Lambeth, J. D. (1999) Nature 401, 79-82[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Bánfi, B., Maturana, A., Jaconi, S., Arnaudeau, S., Laforge, T., Sinha, B., Ligeti, E., Demaurex, N., and Krause, K.-H. (2000) Science 287, 138-142[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Geiszt, M., Lekstrom, K., Brenner, S., Hewitt, S. M., Dana, R., Malech, H. L., and Leto, T. L. (2003) J. Immunol. 171, 299-306[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Kawahara, T., Kuwano, Y., Teshima-Kondo, S., Takeya, R., Sumimoto, H., Kishi, K., Tsunawaki, S., Hirayama, T., and Rokutan, K. (2004) J. Immunol. 172, 3051-3058[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Matsuno, K., Yamada, H., Iwata, K., Jin, D., Katsuyama, M., Matsuki, M., Takai, S., Yamanishi, K., Miyazaki, M., Matsubara, H., and Yabe-Nishimura, C. (2005) Circulation 112, 2677-2685[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Dikalova, A., Clempus, R., Lassegue, B., Cheng, G., McCoy, J., Dikalov, S., San Martin, A., Lyle, A., Weber, D. S., Weiss, D., Taylor, W. R., Schmidt, H. H., Owens, G. K., Lambeth, J. D., and Griendling, K. K. (2005) Circulation 112, 2668-2676[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Takeya, R., Ueno, N., Kami, K., Taura, M., Kohjima, M., Izaki, T., Nunoi, H., and Sumimoto, H. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 25234-25246[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Ambasta, R. K., Kumar, P., Griendling, K. K., Schmidt, H. H., Busse, R., and Brandes, R. P. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 45935-45941[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Hanna, I. R., Hilenski, L. L., Dikalova, A., Taniyama, Y., Dikalov, S., Lyle, A., Quinn, M. T., Lassegue, B., and Griendling, K. K. (2004) Free Radic. Biol. Med. 37, 1542-1549[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. Kawahara, T., Ritsick, D., Cheng, G., and Lambeth, J. D. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 31859-31869[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Bánfi, B., Clark, R. A., Steger, K., and Krause, K. H. J. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 3510-3513[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Geiszt, M., Lekstrom, K., Witta, J., and Leto, T. L. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 20006-20012[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Cheng, G., and Lambeth, J. D. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 4737-4742[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Gregg, D., Rauscher, F. M., and Goldschmidt-Clermont, P. J. (2003) Am. J. Physiol. 285, C723-C734
  50. Ueno, N., Takeya, R., Miyano, K., Kikuchi, H., and Sumimoto, H. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 23328-23339[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Martyn, K. D., Frederick, L. M., von Loehneysen, K., Dinauer, M. C., and Knaus, U. G. (2006) Cell. Signal. 18, 69-82[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  52. Fortemaison, N., Miot, F., Dumont, J. E., and Dremier, S. (2005) Eur. J. Endocrinol. 152, 127-133[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Park, H. S., Lee, S. H., Park, D., Lee, J. S., Ryu, S. H., Lee, W. J., Rhee, S. G., and Bae, Y. S. (2004) Mol. Cell. Biol. 24, 4384-4394[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Kawahara, T., Kohjima, M., Kuwano, Y., Mino, H., Teshima-Kondo, S., Takeya, R., Tsunawaki, S., Wada, A., Sumimoto, H., and Rokutan, K. (2005) Am. J. Physiol. 288, C450-C457[CrossRef]
  55. Akasaki, T., Koga, H., and Sumimoto, H. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 18055-18059[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Leffers, H., Nielsen, M. S., Andersen, A. H., Honore, B., Madsen, P., Vandekerckhove, J., and Celis, J. E. (1993) Exp. Cell Res. 209, 165-174[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  57. Mizushima, S., and Nagata, S. (1990) Nucleic Acids Res. 18, 5322[Free Full Text]
  58. Takeya, R., Ueno, N., and Sumimoto, H. (2005) Methods Enzymol. 406, 456-468
  59. Grinstein, S., and Furuya, W. (1988) J. Biol. Chem. 263, 1779-1783[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Nasmith, P. E., Mills, G. B., and Grinstein, S. (1989) Biochem. J. 257, 893-897[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  61. Tamura, M., Yoshida, K., and Kataoka, K. (1999) Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 361, 257-263[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  62. Lu, W., and Mayer, B. J. (1999) Oncogene 18, 797-806[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  63. Price, L. S., Leng, J., Schwartz, M. A., and Bokoch, G. M. (1998) Mol. Biol. Cell 9, 1863-1871[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  64. Kwong, C. H., Adams, A. G., and Leto, T. L. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 19868-19872[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  65. Lamarche, N., Tapon, N., Stowers, L., Burbelo, P. D., Aspenstrom, P., Bridges, T., Chant, J., and Hall, A. (1996) Cell 87, 519-529[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  66. Kreck, M. L., Freeman, J. L., Abo, A., and Lambeth, J. D. (1996) Biochemistry 35, 15683-15692[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  67. Cheng, G., Ritsick, D., and Lambeth, J. D. (2004) J. Biol. Chem. 279, 34250-34255[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  68. Ueyama, T., Geiszt, M., and Leto, T. L. (2006) Mol. Cell. Biol. 26, 2160-2174[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  69. Cheng, G., Diebold, B. A., Hughes, Y., and Lambeth, J. D. (April 24, 2006) J. Biol. Chem. 281, 10.1074/jbc.M512751200[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  70. Freeman, J. L., and Lambeth, J. D. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 22578-22582[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  71. Koshkin, V., Lotan, O., and Pick, E. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 30326-30329[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Mol. Biol. CellHome page
D. Gianni, B. Bohl, S. A. Courtneidge, and G. M. Bokoch
The Involvement of the Tyrosine Kinase c-Src in the Regulation of Reactive Oxygen Species Generation Mediated by NADPH Oxidase-1
Mol. Biol. Cell, July 1, 2008; 19(7): 2984 - 2994.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
Y.-Y. Kao, D. Gianni, B. Bohl, R. M. Taylor, and G. M. Bokoch
Identification of a Conserved Rac-binding Site on NADPH Oxidases Supports a Direct GTPase Regulatory Mechanism
J. Biol. Chem., May 9, 2008; 283(19): 12736 - 12746.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Cell Sci.Home page
T. P. Rygiel, A. E. Mertens, K. Strumane, R. van der Kammen, and J. G. Collard
The Rac activator Tiam1 prevents keratinocyte apoptosis by controlling ROS-mediated ERK phosphorylation
J. Cell Sci., April 15, 2008; 121(8): 1183 - 1192.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BloodHome page
A. Sallmyr, J. Fan, K. Datta, K.-T. Kim, D. Grosu, P. Shapiro, D. Small, and F. Rassool
Internal tandem duplication of FLT3 (FLT3/ITD) induces increased ROS production, DNA damage, and misrepair: implications for poor prognosis in AML
Blood, March 15, 2008; 111(6): 3173 - 3182.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
H. Choi, T. L. Leto, L. Hunyady, K. J. Catt, Y. S. Bae, and S. G. Rhee
Mechanism of Angiotensin II-induced Superoxide Production in Cells Reconstituted with Angiotensin Type 1 Receptor and the Components of NADPH Oxidase
J. Biol. Chem., January 4, 2008; 283(1): 255 - 267.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
J.-S. Kim, B. A. Diebold, B. M. Babior, U. G. Knaus, and G. M. Bokoch
Regulation of Nox1 Activity via Protein Kinase A-mediated Phosphorylation of NoxA1 and 14-3-3 Binding
J. Biol. Chem., November 30, 2007; 282(48): 34787 - 34800.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Sci SignalHome page
H. Sumimoto, S. Kamakura, and T. Ito
Structure and Function of the PB1 Domain, a Protein Interaction Module Conserved in Animals, Fungi, Amoebas, and Plants
Sci. Signal., August 28, 2007; 2007(401): re6 - re6.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
A. Orient, A. Donko, A. Szabo, T. L. Leto, and M. Geiszt
Novel sources of reactive oxygen species in the human body
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., May 1, 2007; 22(5): 1281 - 1288.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
281/31/21857    most recent
M513665200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miyano, K.
Right arrow Articles by Sumimoto, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Miyano, K.
Right arrow Articles by Sumimoto, H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 All ASBMB Journals   Molecular and Cellular Proteomics 
 Journal of Lipid Research   ASBMB Today 
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement