Advertisement
JBC

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


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M607054200 on August 14, 2006

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 281, Issue 41, 30794-30803, October 13, 2006
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
281/41/30794    most recent
M607054200v1
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 Chang, C.
Right arrow Articles by Harland, R. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chang, C.
Right arrow Articles by Harland, R. M.
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?

Function of the Two Xenopus Smad4s in Early Frog Development*

Chenbei Chang{ddagger}1, Ali H. Brivanlou§, and Richard M. Harland

From the {ddagger}Department of Cell Biology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama 35294-0005, the §Laboratory of Molecular Embryology, Rockefeller University, New York, New York 10021, and the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology and Center for Integrative Genomics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-3200

Received for publication, July 25, 2006 , and in revised form, August 14, 2006.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Signals from the transforming growth factor beta family members are transmitted in the cell through specific receptor-activated Smads and a common partner Smad4. Two Smad4 genes ({alpha} and beta/10, or smad4 and smad4.2) have been isolated from Xenopus, and conflicting data are reported for Smad4beta/10 actions in mesodermal and neural induction. To further understand the functions of the Smad4s in early frog development, we analyzed their activities in detail. We report that Smad10 is a mutant form of Smad4beta that harbors a missense mutation of a conserved arginine to histidine in the MH1 domain. The mutation results in enhanced association of Smad10 with the nuclear transcription corepressor Ski and leads to its neural inducing activity through inhibition of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signaling. In contrast to Smad10, both Smad4{alpha} and Smad4beta enhanced BMP signals in ectodermal explants. Using antisense morpholino oligonucleotides (MOs) to knockdown endogenous Smad4 protein levels, we discovered that Smad4beta was required for both activin- and BMP-mediated mesodermal induction in animal caps, whereas Smad4{alpha} affected only the BMP signals. Neither Smad4 was involved directly in neural induction. Expression of Smad4beta-MO in early frog embryos resulted in reduction of mesodermal markers and defects in axial structures, which were rescued by either Smad4{alpha} or Smad4beta. Smad4{alpha}-MO induced only minor deficiency at late stages. As Smad4beta, but not Smad4{alpha}, is expressed at high levels maternally and during early gastrulation, our data suggest that although Smad4{alpha} and Smad4beta may have similar activities, they are differentially utilized during frog embryogenesis, with only Smad4beta being essential for mesoderm induction.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Members of the TGFbeta2 superfamily of signaling molecules regulate diverse processes both during embryogenesis and in adult tissue homeostasis. In vertebrate embryos, TGFbeta family ligands play crucial roles in generation and patterning of mesodermal and endodermal tissues, in gastrulation, neural induction and patterning, and organogenesis (1-5). Two branches of the growth factor family function differently in various processes. TGFbeta/activin/nodal-like molecules are involved in induction and patterning of early mesendoderm and left-right axis specification, whereas bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) control early dorsoventral patterning in all germ layers and subsequently modulate the formation of multiple organ systems. In adults, one predominant function of the TGFbeta signals is to regulate cell proliferation, and mutations in many signaling components of this pathway are associated with tumor formation (6, 7).

TGFbeta signals are transmitted through two types of transmembrane serine/threonine kinase receptors. In the ligand-induced receptor complex, the type II receptor phosphorylates and activates the type I receptor, which in turn phosphorylates Smad proteins, the cytoplasmic signal transducers. Growth factors from the TGFbeta/activin/nodal subfamily act through their specific type I receptors (ALK4, -5, and -7) to activate Smad2 and -3, whereas BMPs stimulate Smad1, -5, and -8/9 through ALK2, -3, and -6. These receptor-activated Smads (R-Smads) show similar organization of their sequences, which contain the conserved N-terminal MH1 and the C-terminal MH2 domains. R-Smads from both classes interact with a common partner, the co-Smad Smad4, to regulate downstream gene expression. Smad4 also has the MH1 and MH2 domains, but it lacks the C-terminal SSXS motif to be phosphorylated by the type I receptors. Smad4 responds to TGFbeta signals by forming a hetero-oligomer complex with activated R-Smads, translocating into the nucleus and binding to DNA elements, frequently with other sequence-specific transcription factors and co-factors to influence expression of target genes. This canonical TGFbeta signal transduction model thus places Smad4 as an important component for signals from all TGFbeta family members (8).

Although studies with dominant negative Smad4 support a pivotal role of Smad4 in both TGFbeta/activin/nodal- and BMP-mediated processes (9), recent evidence from Smad4-deficient mouse embryos and cells indicate that certain responses to TGFbeta signals may occur in the absence of Smad4. Thus chimeric mouse embryos, containing Smad4-null epiblast cells, form patterned mesoderm that gives rise to the heart, trunk somites, and lateral plate mesoderm, a phenotype different from that expected if both nodal and BMP signals are impaired (10). Murine fibroblast cells deficient in Smad4 still respond to TGFbeta/activin-mediated growth inhibition and induction of extracellular matrix genes (11). Human cell lines with depleted Smad4 only lose a subset of TGFbeta responsive gene expression and can undergo TGFbeta-induced epithelial to mesenchymal transition (12). In addition, mutations in Medea, the Drosophila Smad4 homolog, lead to defective regulation of a subset of the processes affected by mutations in Mad (13). These results imply that Smad4 may not be an obligatory component of all TGFbeta signals and may be dispensable in particular TGFbeta-responsive processes. Currently, it is unclear what determines a process or a target gene to be Smad4-dependent or Smad4-independent.

In Xenopus, two Smad4 genes have been identified (14-16). They show 92 and 90% identity in the MH1 and MH2 domains, respectively. However, the linker region between the two MH domains is divergent in the two genes. Smad4{alpha} is closely related to the mammalian Smad4, whereas Smad4beta/10 has a linker sequence that is only 34% identical to that of the human Smad4 (15, 16). Characterization of the activities of the two Smad4 proteins by different groups has led to conflicting conclusions. On one hand, both Smad4s have been shown to form hetero-oligomer complex with Smad1 and Smad2 in response to BMP and activin signals, respectively, and overexpression of either gene enhances both Smad1- and Smad2-dependent mesoderm induction in ectodermal explants. Both Smad4s therefore act similarly to the conventional mammalian Smad4 as co-Smads (15, 16). On the other hand, the divergent Smad4, Smad4beta/10, is found to induce neural markers directly without the presence of mesoderm in animal cap explants (14). Unlike other direct neural inducers that induce neural tissues via inhibition of ectodermal BMP signals in Xenopus (17, 18), Smad4beta/10 has been claimed to act independently of BMP signals. Furthermore, using antisense morpholino oligonucleotides (MOs) to knockdown endogenous expression, Smad4beta/10 was shown to be required for neural but not mesodermal tissue formation in early Xenopus embryos and had no effect on Smad1- and Smad2-mediated mesoderm induction in animal caps (19). The sequence responsible for the neural inducing activity of Smad4beta/10 was further mapped not to the divergent linker region but to the conserved MH1 and MH2 domains. Based on these results, it was claimed that Smad4beta/10 does not act in the TGFbeta pathway, but has a novel neuralizing function in the Spemann organizer, separate from the dorsalizing and neuralizing effect of the BMP antagonists (14, 19).

Whereas the studies on Xenopus Smad4 genes are intriguing, the questions of how Smad4beta/10 might transduce signals and what pathway(s) it may be involved in are open. It is also unknown whether Smad4{alpha} has a distinct function from Smad4beta/10 in terms of mesodermal and neural induction, and what are the in vivo activities of the two Smad4s. To resolve the outstanding questions on the function of the two Smad4 proteins in early frog development, we undertook biological and biochemical analyses of their roles in TGFbeta-dependent processes. We have addressed: 1) whether Smad4beta/10 induces neural tissues without affecting TGFbeta signaling; 2) what may be the mechanism underlying the activities of Smad4beta/10; and 3) what in vivo roles the two Smad4 proteins play during frog embryogenesis. Our data reveal that Smad10 is a mutant Smad4beta that induces neural markers through interaction with Ski and inhibition of BMPs; and that although Smad4{alpha} and -4beta may have analogous activities, they play different roles in mesodermal formation due to their differential expression during early developmental stages.


Figure 1
View larger version (59K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1.
Both the long and short forms of Smad10 induce neural markers at high doses when they also inhibit BMP signaling. A, Smad10 and its N-terminal 32-amino acid deletion isoform (Smad10{Delta}N) both induce neural markers when expressed at high doses. B, Smad10 and Smad10{Delta}N inhibit BMP signaling at similar doses as those required for neural induction. The doses of Smad10 RNA were: 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8 ng. BMP2 RNA was injected at 0.25 ng. Animal caps from injected embryos were dissected at blastula stage 9, and RNA was extracted from the caps when sibling embryos reached tailbud stages 28-32.

 

   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Plasmid Construction, RNA Synthesis, and Antisense Morpholino Oligonucleotides—The Smad10 construct was obtained from Dr. Graff (University of Texas, Southwestern, GenBankTM accession number AF104232 [GenBank] ), and Smad4{alpha} and Smad4beta plasmids were provided by Dr. Nishida (Kyoto University, GenBank accession numbers AB022721 [GenBank] and AB022722 [GenBank] , respectively). The mutant Smad4beta(R132H), the hemagglutinin-tagged Smad4s, and the FLAG-tagged Ski were all constructed by a PCR-based cloning strategy and inserted into the vector pCS105. The plasmids were linearized with AscI, and RNA was synthesized using the in vitro mMessage mMachine transcription kit from Ambion. The Smad4beta antisense MO is as described (19), and Smad4{alpha}-MO is as the following: 5'-TGTTTGTGATGGACATATTGTCGGT-3'. A standard control MO from Gene Tools was also used in this study.

Protein Co-immunoprecipitation Assay—RNAs encoding hemagglutinin-tagged Smad4s and FLAG-tagged Ski were injected into the animal poles of two-cell stage embryos. Protein extract was made from gastrula embryos and co-immunoprecipitation assays were performed as previously described (20, 21).


Figure 2
View larger version (51K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 2.
Smad4{alpha} and Smad4beta differ from Smad10 in regulation of the TGFbeta signals, and a point mutation in the MH1 domain of Smad4beta converts it to a Smad10-like molecule. A, sequence difference between Smad4beta and Smad10 in the MH1 domain of the molecules. Mutation of the conserved arginine has been identified in human cancer patients. B, Smad4{alpha} and Smad4beta induce the blood marker globin, whereas Smad10 and Smad4beta(R132H) induce the neural marker NRP-1 and the cement gland marker XAG-1. 4 ng of RNAs were used. C, at high doses, Smad4{alpha} and Smad4beta ventralize mesodermal induction by activin, whereas Smad10 and Smad4beta(R132H) inhibit activin and BMP. 2 ng of Smad4/10, 1 pg of activin, and 10 pg of BMP4 RNAs were used. The animal caps were harvested at stages 11 or 32.

 


Figure 3
View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 3.
Smad10, but not Smad4{alpha} or Smad4beta, constitutively binds to the transcription corepressor Ski. Two ng of RNAs encoding the tagged proteins were injected into the two-cell stage embryos. Protein extract was made at early gastrula stages and coimmunoprecipitation was performed to examine protein-protein interaction. IP, immunoprecipitation; IB, immunoblotting.

 
In Situ Hybridization and Whole Mount Immunohistochemistry—Embryos were stained by in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry as described (22, 23). 12/101 antibody was obtained from Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank (University of Iowa).

Reverse Transcription-PCR—RNAs were injected into animal poles of two-cell stage embryos. Animal caps were dissected at blastula stage 9 and harvested at gastrula or tadpole stages. Reverse transcription-PCR was performed as described (23), with 25 cycles of PCR at 94 °C for 30 s, 55 °C for 1 min, and 72 °C for 30 s.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Smad10 Induces Neural Markers via Inhibition of BMP Signals—Smad4beta and Smad10 cDNAs have been isolated by different groups, and the injected mRNA was reported either to enhance Smad1-dependent mesoderm induction or to promote neural tissue formation independent of BMP/Smad1 inhibition (14-16). To examine whether Smad4beta and Smad10 indeed have different activities, we analyzed the activity of the original Smad4beta and Smad10 cDNA clones. Overexpression of Smad10 mRNA induced neural markers in the absence of mesoderm in a dose-dependent manner (Fig. 1A). To address whether Smad10 neuralizes by BMP inhibition, we first tested whether Smad10 blocked BMP activity in an independent assay. Indeed, Smad10 inhibited induction of globin expression by BMP2 at similar doses to those required for neural induction (Fig. 1B). Furthermore, neural markers were suppressed when Smad10 was coexpressed with BMP2 (Fig. 1B), supporting the notion that Smad10 inhibits BMP signals.

A Smad4beta isoform lacking the N-terminal 32-amino acid extension was previously used to demonstrate that Smad4beta enhanced Smad1 activities (15), so we sought to examine whether the discrepancy on Smad4beta/10 function might be due to the presence or absence of this N-terminal region. A short form of Smad10 (Smad10{Delta}N) with its N-terminal 32 amino acids removed had the same activities as the full-length Smad10 in animal caps, and could also induce neural markers through inhibition of BMPs (Fig. 1). Our results confirm that overexpression of Smad10 at high levels can indeed induce neural markers; but contrary to the previous report, we find that induction of neural tissues is associated with inhibition of BMP signaling.

Smad4{alpha} and Smad4beta Have Different Activities from Smad10, and a Point Mutation in Smad4beta Converts It to Smad10—Smad10 is nearly identical to Smad4beta (Fig. 2A), but Smad4beta has been reported to have a different activity (15, 16). To understand the potential differences between the two molecules, we overexpressed Smad4beta and Smad10 in animal caps and compared their function side by side. Unlike Smad10, Smad4beta did not induce neural markers, but instead stimulated the expression of globin (Fig. 2B). When coexpressed with activin, Smad4beta ventralized the mesodermal induction at high doses, although at low doses it enhanced the marker induction by activin (Fig. 2C and data not shown). The behavior of Smad4beta is similar to that of Smad4{alpha} in regulation of TGFbeta signals (Fig. 2). This agrees with previous reports (15, 16) and suggests that although these two Smad4s have divergent linker regions, they have comparable functions. In contrast to Smad4{alpha} and -4beta, Smad10 blocked both activin- and BMP-dependent mesodermal induction when expressed at high levels (Fig. 2C). Our data demonstrate that despite the nearly identical sequences of Smad10 and Smad4beta, they have different activities in modulation of TGFbeta signaling.


Figure 4
View larger version (54K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 4.
Smad4beta is required for activin- and BMP-induced mesoderm formation, whereas Smad4{alpha} is required only for BMP-mediated mesoderm induction. Neither Smad4s is involved directly in neural induction. A, the Smad4-MOs were specific in blocking translation only from messenger RNAs that contain the corresponding 5'-UTR sequences. B and C, depletion of Smad4beta resulted in inhibition of activin- and BMP-induced marker expression at both gastrula (B) and tadpole (C) stages; but Smad4{alpha}-MO only blocked the marker induction by BMP4. Neither MO inhibited neural gene induction by noggin. The dose of the MOs used was 20 ng, and the RNAs were injected at 2.5 pg for activin, 10 pg for BMP4, and 10 pg for noggin. D, rescue of MO repression of marker expression by both Smad4{alpha} and Smad4beta suggests that the two Smad4s have similar activities. The doses of the MOs used were 20 ng, and the doses of RNAs used were: 1 pg of activin, 10 pg of BMP4, 100 pg of Smad4{alpha} and Smad4beta. The assays were performed at gastrula (stage 11) or tadpole (stage 32) stages.

 
Sequence comparison between Smad10 and Smad4beta reveals that they differ at amino acid 132 in the MH1 domain, with Smad10 encoding histidine and Smad4beta encoding arginine at this position (Fig. 2A). All mammalian Smad4s as well as Xenopus Smad4{alpha} encode arginine at the corresponding position, and mutation of this conserved arginine is found in human cancer patients (24-27). We therefore examined the possibility that the change of this residue in Smad10 was responsible for its distinct activity. We introduced the same point mutation into Smad4beta and analyzed the function of the resulting mutant Smad4beta(R132H). As shown in Fig. 2, alteration of the single amino acid reversed the action of Smad4beta(R132H), so that it inhibited BMP signaling and induced neural markers. The behavior of Smad4beta(R132H) mimicked that of Smad10, suggesting that the missense mutation in Smad10 changed it from a cytoplasmic transducer to an inhibitor of TGFbeta signals.

To further investigate whether Smad10 might be a natural allele of Smad4beta that is expressed during early frog development, we PCR cloned the corresponding fragment of Smad4beta from both maternal (stage 2) and gastrula (stage 10) stage embryos. Sequence analyses of randomly picked clones revealed that all eight maternal and 12 out of 13 gastrula Smad4beta clones encoded arginine at the relevant position, with only one sequence from gastrula Smad4beta clones encoded histidine. We also examined both Xenopus laevis and Xenopus tropicalis EST databases and found that all 33 overlapping Smad4beta EST sequences contained the codon for arginine at the pertinent position. We thus conclude that Smad10 may not be present abundantly to influence mesoderm induction and patterning during early frog embryogenesis.

Enhanced Interaction of Smad10 with the Ski Transcription Corepressor—To understand how Smad10 may differ from Smad4{alpha} and -4beta in regulation of TGFbeta signals, we performed biochemical studies. As Smad10 blocked both activin and BMPs at high doses, we reasoned that it might interact with transcriptional repressors to suppress TGFbeta target genes. A possible candidate is the nuclear oncoprotein Ski, which has previously been demonstrated to bind to the mammalian Smad4 and act as a corepressor to inhibit both TGFbeta and BMP signals (28-32). We thus constructed epitope-tagged Smad4, Smad10, and Ski and examined whether these Smads had differential abilities to bind to Ski in a co-immunoprecipitation assay. As shown in Fig. 3, neither Smad4{alpha} nor Smad4beta associated with Ski in the absence of the TGFbeta signals, whereas Smad10 interacted with Ski strongly (Fig. 3, compare lanes 6 and 7 with lane 8). Activation of the TGFbeta pathway by activin or BMP4 did not significantly alter the interaction of Smad10 with Ski (not shown). Our results indicate that the point mutation in Smad10 leads to enhanced binding of Smad10 to the transcriptional corepressor Ski, and that this interaction may contribute to its ability to repress activin and BMP signals when expressed at high levels in early frog embryos.


Figure 5
View larger version (46K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 5.
Knockdown of endogenous Smad4beta protein levels leads to embryos with axial defects. A, injection of total 20 ng of Smad4beta-MO into the animal poles of two-cell stage embryos results in reduction of the head structures, malformation of the eyes, and tail defects in the embryos. Smad4{alpha}-MO only induced minor defects in the dorsal fin, and a control MO did not induce significant axial defects. B, injection of 20-40 ng of Smad4beta-MO into the marginal zone region of two-cell stage embryos induced more severe axial defects, with the morphant embryos showing gastrulation defects and reduced body axis.

 
Differential Requirement for Smad4{alpha} and Smad4beta in Activin-and BMP-stimulated Mesodermal Induction—Overexpression experiments show that the two Xenopus Smad4s may have analogous activities in mediating signals from TGFbeta ligands. The requirement for endogenous Smad4s in TGFbeta-regulated processes, however, is unknown. To address this issue, we performed loss-of-function studies, using antisense MOs to knockdown the endogenous Smad4 protein levels. In vitro translation assays showed that both Smad4{alpha}-MO and Smad4beta-MO specifically reduced protein synthesis from their respective RNA templates that contained the corresponding 5'-untranslated region (UTR), but they did not block protein synthesis from the templates that contained modified upstream sequences, nor did they inhibit protein translation from the other Smad4 gene (Fig. 4A). When coexpressed with activin, Smad4{alpha}-MO did not block mesodermal induction in animal caps (Fig. 4, B and C, lane 4), but Smad4beta-MO dramatically inhibited activin-induced marker expression (Fig. 4, B and C, compare lanes 2 and 3). The result demonstrates that Smad4beta is required for activin-mediated mesoderm induction in animal caps. We next coexpressed the MOs with BMP4 and discovered that both Smad4{alpha}-MO and Smad4beta-MO blocked the induction of globin by BMP4 (Fig. 4C, lanes 5-7). The data implies that Smad4{alpha} and Smad4beta are differentially utilized in activin- and BMP-dependent mesodermal induction.

The Smad4beta-MO, which is the same as the Smad10-MO, has previously been used to demonstrate that Smad10 is essential for neural induction in both animal caps and early frog embryos (19). To test whether this is the case and whether Smad4{alpha} is also critical for neural induction, we coexpressed the Smad4 MOs with the neural inducer noggin and assayed for neural markers in animal caps by reverse transcription-PCR. As shown in Fig. 4, B and C, noggin induced the anterior neural marker Otx2 and the pan-neural marker NRP-1; coexpression with Smad4 MOs did not significantly alter the induction of these genes. Our results thus indicate that neither Smad4 protein is involved directly in the neural induction process.

To examine whether MO-mediated inhibition of mesodermal induction by activin and BMPs can be rescued with Smad4s, we coexpressed Smad4 MOs with the 5'-UTR-modified Smad4{alpha} or Smad4beta RNAs. At high doses (above 0.5 ng), both Smad4{alpha} and -4beta rescued ventral markers without restoration of dorsal transcripts in activin-induced mesodermal formation (not shown); this result is consistent with our finding that overexpression of Smad4{alpha} and -4beta ventralizes mesoderm induction by activin (Fig. 2). At low doses (50-100 pg) these Smad4s rescued expression of both dorsal (chordin at gastrula stages, type II collagen and muscle actin at tadpole stages) and ventral (XWnt8 and globin at gastrula and tadpole stages, respectively) markers, although the efficiency of rescue of these regional markers by the two Smad4s varied slightly in different experiments (Fig. 4D, left panel, and data not shown). The result indicates that although depletion of Smad4{alpha} does not affect activin activities, elevation of Smad4{alpha} protein levels can compensate for the loss of Smad4beta in restoring activin response in animal caps. Rescue of MO-inhibited BMP function with the two Smad4s showed that both genes rescued the ventral mesodermal markers induced by BMP4 (Fig. 4D, right panel). Our data suggest that the two Smad4s may function similarly when overexpressed, but due to their different endogenous expression patterns and levels they may preferentially participate in signal transduction of different TGFbeta ligands.


Figure 6
View larger version (68K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 6.
Knockdown of Smad4beta leads to reduction of mesodermal and neural markers in the morphant embryos. A, injection of 20-40 ng of Smad4beta-MO in two-cell stage embryos led to reduction of the mesodermal markers Brachyury (Xbra), Chordin, MyoD, and Wnt8 at gastrula stages, and the reduction was only slightly enhanced by Smad4{alpha}-MO. Smad4{alpha}-MO alone or the control MO did not affect marker expression. B, at neurula stages, the notochordal expression of Xbra and the paraxial mesodermal gene MyoD were both reduced in Smad4beta morphant embryos. Co-injection of Smad4{alpha}-MO and Smad4beta-MO resulted in further reduction of these markers. The pan-neural marker Sox2 was also down-regulated in embryos expressing Smad4beta-MO. Control MO and Smad4{alpha}-MO did not significantly inhibit expression of these genes. C, expression of either Smad4{alpha}-MO or Smad4beta-MO led to reduction of globin expression in the resulting tadpoles. In A, the embryos were viewed from the vegetal pole of gastrula embryos with the dorsal side to the right. In B, the embryos were viewed from the dorsal side with anterior to the left. In C, the embryos were oriented with the anterior to the left and viewed from the lateral side.

 
Smad4beta Is Required for Mesoderm Formation in Early Frog Embryos—Our data from the in vitro explant assays demonstrate that Smad4beta is required for mesoderm induction by both activin and BMP4, whereas Smad4{alpha} may have more limited influence on mesoderm formation (Fig. 4). To address the in vivo functions of these Smad4s, we next injected the MOs into early frog embryos and observed the morphology of and marker gene expression in the resulting embryos. When injected into the animal poles of two-cell stage embryos, Smad4beta-MO induced head defects with missing eyes in most embryos, and the tails of the injected embryos were often short and bent. In contrast, embryos injected with Smad4{alpha}-MO showed relatively normal axis formation, although the dorsal fin was expanded. A control MO injected in parallel did not cause any obvious defects in the embryos (Fig. 5A). To further assess the activities of endogenous Smad4s, we also injected the MOs into the marginal zone regions of two-cell stage embryos at 20-40-ng doses. As shown in Fig. 5B, whereas neither the control MO nor the Smad4{alpha}-MO induced dramatic defects, Smad4beta-MO caused severe malformation of the body axis. Gastrulation was delayed, and open blastopore was observed in late stage embryos. The head and tail of the morphant embryos were reduced or missing, and the body axis was shortened (Fig. 5B). When the two Smad4 MOs were coinjected into early embryos, the resulting morphants showed the phenotypes similar to that when Smad4beta-MO was injected alone, although more embryos displayed gastrulation defects and shortened body axis (not shown). The phenotype of the MO-injected embryos indicates that Smad4beta plays an important role in body axis formation during early frog development.

To examine how the mesodermal and neural transcripts are affected when the embryos are depleted of endogenous Smad4s, we assayed for expression of marker genes by in situ hybridization. Injection of Smad4beta-MO into two-cell stage embryos led to reduction of multiple mesodermal genes at gastrula stages (Fig. 6 and 7). The general dorsal-ventral patterning of the mesoderm was not disrupted, but the expression of the pan-mesodermal gene Brachyury (Xbra) as well as the dorsal and ventral mesodermal markers, such as Chordin, MyoD, and Wnt8, were reduced in Smad4beta morphant embryos. Neither the control MO nor Smad4{alpha}-MO affected the expression of these genes (Figs. 6A and 7). When both MOs were injected into early embryos, the expression of the marker genes was only slightly reduced when compared with the embryos received only Smad4beta-MO (Fig. 6). This implies that Smad4beta, but not Smad4{alpha}, is the major co-Smad used during mesodermal induction. At neurula stages, Xbra transcripts were localized around the blastopore and in the notochord. Similar patterns were observed in embryos injected with the control MO or Smad4{alpha}-MO. However, in embryos injected with Smad4beta-MO, the notochordal expression of Xbra was reduced, although its expression around the blastopore remained high (Fig. 6B). In addition, the paraxial mesodermal marker MyoD and the panneural marker Sox2 were greatly down-regulated in Smad4beta morphant embryos, although they were relatively normal in Smad4{alpha} morphants (Fig. 6B). When the two Smad4 MOs were both present, there was further reduction of notochordal Xbra and paraxial mesodermal MyoD expression, and the Sox2 level was also reduced (Fig. 6B). Our data reveal that Smad4beta plays a primary role during early mesodermal induction, whereas Smad4{alpha} may be involved in maintenance of axial and paraxial mesoderm at later stages. In addition, although Smad4beta affects neural induction, it most likely does so indirectly through its regulation of dorsal mesoderm formation.


Figure 7
View larger version (74K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 7.
Rescue of Smad4beta morphant embryos with Smad4{alpha} or Smad4beta. Both Smad4{alpha} and Smad4beta (with modified UTR sequences) rescued the marker expression in Smad4beta morphant embryos at gastrula (A) and neurula (B) stages. Embryos in A were viewed from the vegetal side with the dorsal quadrant to the right, whereas embryos in B were viewed from the dorsal side with the anterior to the left. 20-40 ng of Smad4beta-MO were injected, and 100 pg of Smad4{alpha} or Smad4beta RNAs were used in the rescue experiments.

 
In explant assays, Smad4{alpha} is shown to be important for induction of the blood marker by BMPs. To see whether Smad4{alpha} also plays a role in blood development in vivo, we analyzed the expression of globin in embryos injected with Smad4 MOs. As shown in Fig. 6C, both Smad4{alpha}-MO and Smad4beta-MO greatly reduced the level of globin transcripts, suggesting that blood formation is sensitive to the levels of Smad4s.

To see whether the defects induced by Smad4beta-MO can be rescued by Smad4s, we coexpressed the MO with the 5'-UTR-modified Smad4{alpha} or Smad4beta RNAs. Consistent with our in vitro results, both Smad4{alpha} and Smad4beta rescued marker expression in Smad4beta morphant embryos (Fig. 7). At gastrula stages, the level of Xbra and Chordin expression was restored, whereas the expression of MyoD and Wnt8 was expanded toward the animal pole by Smad4{alpha} and -4beta (Fig. 7A). Similarly, at neurula stages both the mesodermal marker MyoD and the neural marker Sox2 were rescued by either Smad4s (Fig. 7B). Our data indicate that the defects induced by Smad4beta-MO are specific, and that Smad4{alpha} and -4beta may have equivalent activities when overexpressed.

Reduction of Neural Markers in Smad4beta/10 Morphant Embryos Is Associated with the Reduction of Mesodermal Transcripts—It has previously been reported that depletion of Smad10, the mutant form of Smad4beta, leads to reduction of neural markers in the absence of defects in the axial/paraxial mesoderm (19). However, our results above suggest that knockdown of Smad4beta/10 results in mesodermal defects, and the reduction of the neural genes may be a secondary effect. To examine further the requirement for Smad4beta/10 in mesodermal and neural development, we injected the Smad4beta-MO (i.e. Smad10-MO) into one blastomere of two-cell stage embryos, together with the lineage tracer the nuclear beta-galactosidase mRNA. The injected side was then identified by staining with a red substrate (Red-Gal) at tailbud stages. In these embryos, we assayed for the presence of the paraxial mesoderm by whole mount immunohistochemistry study with an antibody (12/101) against the muscle epitope and the presence of the neural tissue by in situ hybridization with the Sox2 probe. As shown in Fig. 8, 12/101 and Sox2 staining are both present in the uninjected and injected sides in embryos expressing the control MO or Smad4{alpha}-MO (Fig. 8, a-f). In embryos injected with Smad4beta-MO, the expression of the 12/101 epitope and Sox2 was normal on the control side, but both markers were absent on the injected side (Fig. 8, g-i). We did not observe the loss of Sox2 without losing the 12/101 epitope also. Our result thus supports the notion that the absence of the neural tissues in the morphant embryos correlates with the absence of the dorsal mesoderm, and that Smad4beta is primarily involved in formation of the mesoderm rather than neural structures.


Figure 8
View larger version (89K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 8.
Reduction of neural markers in Smad4beta morphant embryos is associated with reduction of mesodermal genes. A single blastomere injection of 20 ng of Smad4beta-MO with the lineage tracer nuclear beta-galactosidase at the two-cell stage resulted in suppression of the muscle marker 12/101 epitope and the neural marker Sox2 on the injected side. Injection of the control MO or Smad4{alpha}-MO did not block these markers. The embryos were viewed from the dorsal (a, d, and g) or lateral (b, c, e, f, h, and i) sides. The injected side (labeled with beta-galactosidase) was viewed in the right column, and the control uninjected side was viewed in the center column. The left column shows the dorsal view of the embryos with both injected and uninjected sides.

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
In TGFbeta signal transduction, Smad4 has been proposed to be the common Smad that associates with activated R-Smads in response to growth factor stimulation. The subsequent nuclear translocation of Smad4/R-Smad complexes allows interaction of these Smads with DNA and other transcription factors to regulate expression of TGFbeta downstream genes (8). Two Xenopus Smad4 genes have recently been isolated. Whereas some studies showed that both Smad4s behave like their mammalian counterpart to cooperate with R-Smads (15, 16), one group argued that the Smad4beta/10 protein may act independently of the activin/BMP pathways to regulate neural induction (14, 19). The reason underlying the discrepancy on Smad4beta/10 function has not previously been understood, nor is it known whether Smad4{alpha} and Smad4beta/10 regulate similar or different processes during early frog development.

In our present study, we undertook detailed analyses of the functions of the Xenopus Smad4s in early frog embryogenesis, using both explant and whole embryo assays. We demonstrate that although Smad4beta and Smad10 represent the same gene isolated by different groups, they do not have identical activities. Smad10 induced neural markers directly in the absence of mesoderm when expressed at high levels; whereas Smad4beta induced globin expression and ventralized mesodermal induction. We attribute the functional differences to a single point mutation that changes a conserved arginine to a histidine in the MH1 domain of Smad10. Alteration of this arginine to histidine in Smad4beta converts it to a Smad10-like molecule with neural inducing ability. Mutations of this conserved arginine in both Smad2 and Smad4 have been identified in human cancer patients (24, 33). In the case of Smad4, the tumorigenic missense mutation of arginine to threonine leads to increased autoinhibitory interaction of MH1 with MH2 domains (25), impaired ability for Smad4 nuclear translocation and DNA binding (26), and decreased protein stability through degradation by the ubiquitin-proteosome pathway (27). The RT mutation in Smad4 thus leads to an inactive molecule that cannot mediate TGFbeta signaling. In comparison, the RH mutation in Smad10 is a dominant negative mutation that inhibits both activin and BMP signals when overexpressed. Our mechanistic studies reveal that the mutation leads to enhanced association of Smad10 with the nuclear oncoprotein Ski. Ski has been shown to be a transcription corepressor in the TGFbeta pathway. It binds to Smad2, -3, and -4 and helps to recruit histone deacetylase to Smad-responsive promoters to block both activin and BMP downstream target genes (28-32, 34-37). Because Ski has low affinity to Smad1, binding of Ski to Smad4 is indispensable for suppression of BMP signals by Ski in mammalian cells (38). In Xenopus, Smad4beta resides constitutively in the nucleus regardless of the status of TGFbeta activation (15, 39). The enhanced association of Smad10 with Ski can thus serve to inhibit BMP activities constitutively, blocking both basal and activated BMP signaling. Potentially if Smad10 is a natural allele of Smad4beta and is present during early development, it may act to restrict BMP signaling levels in frog embryos. However, analyses of randomly picked Smad4beta fragments amplified from maternal and gastrula stage cDNA show that most (20/21) of Smad4beta sequences present during the time of mesodermal formation encode an arginine at the corresponding position. EST data base searches also revealed that all 33 Smad4beta EST clones have the conserved arginine. The data suggests that Smad10 is likely a rare allele of Smad4beta.

In previous reports (14, 19), Smad10 is shown to induce neural markers without blocking BMP signaling and to be required for endogenous neural tissue formation in Xenopus. Our current finding indicates that Smad10 inhibits marker induction by BMPs in a dose-dependent manner, and the doses required of Smad10 for neural induction are the same as those when it inhibits BMPs. The result implies that Smad10 induces neural tissue not by a novel mechanism as proposed, but via inhibition of BMP signaling. Depletion of endogenous Smad10 (i.e. Smad4beta) indeed decreases neural marker expression; however, the effect seems to be secondary, as dorsal mesodermal markers are also reduced. The involvement of Smad10 in neural induction in vivo is thus indirect.

What is the endogenous function of Smad4beta/10, and how does it compare with that of Smad4{alpha}? Using the MO-mediated knockdown approach, we discover that Smad4beta plays an essential role in mesodermal induction and axis formation, and this may rely on the ability of Smad4beta to mediate endogenous nodal and BMP signals. Depletion of Smad4beta does not alter the dorsal-ventral patterning of the mesoderm, but causes a general reduction of all mesodermal markers assayed. In contrast, Smad4{alpha} is dispensable for mesodermal induction at gastrula stages, although at neurula stages it may participate in maintenance of axial and paraxial mesodermal structures. The differences in requirement of the two Smad4s in early frog embryogenesis seem to reflect their different expression patterns rather than their different activities. Overexpression experiments in animal caps as well as rescue assays in explants and whole embryos demonstrate that the two Smad4s can functionally replace each other. However, Smad4beta, but not Smad4{alpha}, is expressed at high levels maternally and during early gastrulation; whereas Smad4{alpha} transcripts are low initially and increased only at mid- to late gastrula stages (15, 16). The expression profile is consistent with our conclusion that Smad4beta plays a more vital role than Smad4{alpha} in mesodermal induction. Currently, it is unclear whether all aspects of early TGFbeta signals are affected in Smad4 knockdown frog embryos. In mouse, specific elimination of Smad4 in epiblast cells leads to defects in only a subset of TGFbeta- and BMP-regulated processes (10, 11). In Drosophila, the Smad4 homolog Medea also potentiates most but not all Dpp-dependent responses (13). In mammalian cells, a nuclear protein TIF1{gamma} interacts with the activated Smad2/3 and mediates different processes from the Smad4-Smad2/3 complex in response to TGF-beta signals (40). Future research is required to determine whether one or both Smad4s are dispensable in certain TGFbeta-/BMP-modulated developmental events in frog.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant R01 HD43345. 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.: 205-975-7229; Fax: 205-975-5648; E-mail: cchang{at}uab.edu.

2 The abbreviations used are: TGF, transforming growth factor; BMP, bone morphogenetic protein; R-Smad, receptor-activated Smad; MO, morpholino oligonucleotides; UTR, untranslated region. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Drs. J. Graff and E. Nishida for kindly providing the Smad10 and Smad4 constructs, and the Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank for 12/101 antibody. We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out the possibility that a point mutation may underlie the difference in activity. We also thank the MBL embryology course (Woods Hole, MA) where the highly interactive atmosphere fostered the collaboration and facilitated in depth discussion.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Harland, R. M., and Gerhart, J. (1997) Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 13, 611-667[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Hogan, B. L. (1996) Genes Dev. 10, 1580-1594[Free Full Text]
  3. Whitman, M. (1998) Genes Dev. 12, 2445-2462[Free Full Text]
  4. Chang, H., Brown, C. W., and Matzuk, M. M. (2002) Endocr. Rev. 23, 787-823[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Zhao, G. (2003) Genesis 35, 43-56[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Derynck, R., Akhurst, R. J., and Balmain, A. (2001) Nat. Genet. 29, 117-129[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Siegel, P. M., and Massague, J. (2003) Nat. Rev. Cancer 3, 807-821[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Shi, Y., and Massague, J. (2003) Cell 113, 685-700[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Lagna, G., Hata, A., Hemmati-Brivanlou, A., and Massgue, J. (1996) Nature 383, 832-836[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Chu, G. C., Dunn, N. R., Anderson, D. C., Oxburgh, L., and Robertson, E. J. (2004) Development 131, 3501-3512[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Sirard, C., Kim, S., Mirtsos, C., Tadich, P., Hoodless, P. A., Itie, A., Maxson, R., Wrana, J. L., and Mak, T. W. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 2063-2070[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Levy, L., and Hill, C. S. (2005) Mol. Cell. Biol. 25, 8108-8125[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Wisotzkey, R. G., Mehra, A., Sutherland, D. J., Dobens, L. L., Liu, X., Dohrmann, C., Attisano, L., and Raftery, L. A. (1998) Development 125, 1433-1445[Abstract]
  14. LeSueur, J. A., and Graff, J. M. (1999) Development 126, 137-146[Abstract]
  15. Masuyama, N., Hanafusa, H., Kusakabe, M., Shibuya, H., and Nishida, E. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 12163-12170[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Howell, M., Itoh, F., Pierreux, C. E., Valgeirsdottir, S., Itoh, S., ten Dijke, P., and Hill, C. S. (1999) Dev. Biol. 214, 354-369[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Harland, R. M. (2000) Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 10, 357-362[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Khokha, M. K., Yeh, J., Grammer, T. C., and Harland, R. M. (2005) Dev. Cell 8, 401-411[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. LeSueur, J. A., Fortuno, E. S., III, McKay, R. M., and Graff, J. M. (2002) Dev. Cell 2, 771-783[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Yeo, C., and Whitman, M. (2001) Mol. Cell 7, 949-957[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Harms, P. W., and Chang, C. (2003) Genes Dev. 17, 2624-2629[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Harland, R. M. (1991) Methods Cell Biol. 36, 685-695[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Chang, C., Wilson, P. W., Mathews, L. S., and Hemmati-Brivanlou, A. (1997) Development 124, 827-837[Abstract]
  24. Schutte, M., Hruban, R. H., Hedrick, L., Cho, K. R., Nadasdy, G. M., Weinstein, C. L., Bova, G. S., Isaacs, W. B., Cairns, P., Nawroz, H., Sidransky, D., Casero, R. A., Jr., Meltzer, P. S., Hahn, S. A., and Kern, S. E. (1996) Cancer Res. 56, 2527-2530[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Hata, A., Lo, R. S., Wotton, D., Lagna, G., and Massague, J. (1997) Nature 388, 82-87[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Moren, A., Itoh, S., Moustakas, A., ten Dijke, P., and Heldin, C.-H. (2000) Oncogene 19, 4396-4404[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Xu, J., and Attisano, L. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 4820-4825[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Akiyoshi, S., Inoue, H., Hanai, J., Kusanagi, K., Nemoto, N., Miyazono, K., and Kawabata, M. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 35269-35277[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Luo, K., Stroschein, S. L., Wang, W., Chen, D., Martens, E., Zhou, S., and Zhou, Q. (1999) Genes Dev. 13, 2196-2206[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Sun, Y., Liu, X., Eaton, E. N., Lane, W. S., Lodish, H. F., and Weinberg, R. A. (1999) Mol. Cell 4, 499-509[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Wang, W., Mariani, F. V., Harland, R. M., and Luo, K. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 14394-14399[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Xu, W., Angelis, K., Danielpour, D., Haddad, M. M., Bischof, O., Campisi, J., Stavnezer, E., and Medrano, E. E. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 5924-5929[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Eppert, K., Scherer, S. W., Ozcelik, H., Pirone, R. Hoodless, P., Kim, H., Tsui, L.-C., Bapat, B., Gallinger, S., Andrulis, I. L., Thomsen, G. H., Wrana, J. L., and Attisano, L. (1996) Cell 86, 543-552[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Liberati, N. T., Moniwa, M., Borton, A. J., Davie, J. R., and Wang, X.-F. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 22595-22603[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. He, J., Tegen, S. B., Krawitz, A. R., Martin, G. S., and Luo, K. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 30540-30547[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Prunier, C., Pessah, M., Ferrand, N., Seo, S. R., Howe, P., and Atfi, A. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 26249-26257[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Suzuki, H., Yagi, K., Kondo, M., Kato, M., Miyazono, K., and Miyazawa, K. (2004) Oncogene 23, 5068-5076[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Takeda, M., Mizuide, M., Oka, M., Watabe, T., Inoue, H., Suzuki, H., Fujita, T., Imamura, T., Miyazono, K., and Miyazawa, K. (2004) Mol. Biol. Cell 15, 963-972[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Watanabe, M., Masuyama, N., Fukuda, M., and Nishida, E. (2000) EMBO Rep. 1, 176-182[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. He, W., Dom, D. C., Erdjument-Bromage, H., Tempst, P., Moore, M. A. S., and Massague, J. (2006) Cell 125, 929-941[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

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
 J. Histochem. Cytochem.Home page
M. C. Banas, W. T. Parks, K. L. Hudkins, B. Banas, M. Holdren, M. Iyoda, T. A. Wietecha, J. Kowalewska, G. Liu, and C. E. Alpers
Localization of TGF-{beta} Signaling Intermediates Smad2, 3, 4, and 7 in Developing and Mature Human and Mouse Kidney
J. Histochem. Cytochem., March 1, 2007; 55(3): 275 - 285.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
281/41/30794    most recent
M607054200v1
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 Chang, C.
Right arrow Articles by Harland, R. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chang, C.
Right arrow Articles by Harland, R. M.
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