Advertisement
JBC

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


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M600943200 on August 30, 2006

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 281, Issue 43, 32175-32187, October 27, 2006
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
281/43/32175    most recent
M600943200v1
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 Barthel, S. R.
Right arrow Articles by Johansson, M. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barthel, S. R.
Right arrow Articles by Johansson, M. W.
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?

Differential Engagement of Modules 1 and 4 of Vascular Cell Adhesion Molecule-1 (CD106) by Integrins {alpha}4beta1 (CD49d/29) and {alpha}Mbeta2 (CD11b/18) of Eosinophils*

Steven R. Barthel, Douglas S. Annis, Deane F. Mosher1, and Mats W. Johansson

From the Departments of Biomolecular Chemistry and Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706-1532

Received for publication, January 31, 2006 , and in revised form, August 10, 2006.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
We have studied adhesion of eosinophils to various forms of vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1, CD106), an integrin counter-receptor implicated in eosinophil recruitment to the airway in asthma. Full-length 7d-VCAM-1, with seven immunoglobulin-like modules, contains integrin-binding sites in modules 1 and 4. The alternatively spliced six-module protein, 6d-VCAM-1, lacks module 4. In static assays, unactivated purified human blood eosinophils adhered similarly to recombinant soluble human 6d-VCAM-1 and 7d-VCAM-1 coated onto polystyrene microtiter wells. Further experiments, however, revealed differences in recognition of modules 1 and 4. Antibody blocking indicated that eosinophil adhesion to 6d-VCAM-1 or a VCAM-1 construct containing only modules 1–3, 1–3VCAM-1, is mediated by {alpha}4beta1 (CD49d/29), whereas adhesion to a construct containing modules 4–7, 4–7VCAM-1, is mediated by both{alpha}4beta1 and{alpha}Mbeta2 (CD11b/18). Inhibitors of phosphoinositide 3-kinase, which block adhesion of eosinophils mediated by {alpha}Mbeta2, blocked adhesion to 4–7VCAM-1 but had no effect on adhesion to 6d-VCAM-1. Consistent with the antibody and pharmacological blocking experiments, eosinophilic leukemic cell lines lacking {alpha}Mbeta2 did not adhere to 4–7VCAM-1 but did adhere to 6d-VCAM-1 or 1–3VCAM-1. Activation of eosinophils by interleukin (IL)-5 enhanced static adhesion to 6d-VCAM-1, 7d-VCAM-1, or 4–7VCAM-1; IL-5-enhanced adhesion to all 3 constructs was blocked by anti-{alpha}Mbeta2. Adhesion of unstimulated eosinophils to 7d-VCAM-1 under flow conditions was inhibited by anti-{alpha}4 or anti-{alpha}M. IL-5 treatment decreased eosinophil adhesion to 7d-VCAM-1 under flow, and anti-{alpha}M had the paradoxical effect of increasing adhesion. These results demonstrate that {alpha}Mbeta2 modulates{alpha}4beta1-mediated eosinophil adhesion to VCAM-1 under both static and flow conditions.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1)2 is a multimodular cell-surface glycoprotein up-regulated on human endothelium in response to pro-inflammatory cytokines in the asthmatic lung (1) and has been implicated in recruitment of eosinophils (EOS) from blood to the airway in asthma (2). Heterodimeric integrin receptors interacting with VCAM-1 are important in the rolling, firm adhesion, and movement of EOS (3, 4). These events are regulated by cytokines, which may alter integrin adhesive activity (5, 6). EOS express at least three potential integrin receptors that may be involved in adhesion to VCAM-1: {alpha}4beta1 (7–9), {alpha}Dbeta2 (7), and {alpha}4beta7 (8–11).

Considerable information is available about features of human VCAM-1 that are important for adhesion. The loop between beta strands C and D in the first immunoglobulin (Ig)-like module is accessible on the protein surface and contains the core integrin-recognition sequence Ile39-Asp-Ser-Pro-Leu43 (IDSPL) (11–15). A second IDSPL site is present in the CD loop in module 4 (12, 14). Based on topology of exons within the mammalian genome and the similarity in amino acid sequence, a three-module unit was likely duplicated to generate VCAM-1 modules 1–3 and 4–6 (16, 17). Modules 1 and 4 of human VCAM-1 share 73% sequence identity and contain two disulfide bonds, which is unusual for Ig-like modules (15, 17).

Alternative splicing of mRNA encoding VCAM-1 generates two protein forms in humans, a variant consisting of seven Ig-like modules, 7d-VCAM-1, containing putative integrin-binding sites in modules 1 and 4, and a variant containing six Ig-like modules, 6d-VCAM-1, which is missing the putative integrin-binding site in module 4 and contains only the site in module 1 (18). Despite the similarities between modules 1 and 4, studies involving lymphocytic and monocytic cell lines demonstrated that interactions with modules 1 and 4 are regulated differently by conditions such as shear stress, divalent cations, and temperature (19–21). Such differences in activities between modules 1 and 4 for lymphocytic and monocytic cell lines led us to question whether modules 1 and 4 of VCAM-1 have unique functions in adhesion of primary EOS isolated from human blood. In particular, we speculated that VCAM-1 modules may have different affinities and/or adhesive functions for the three described VCAM-1-interacting integrins of EOS. These investigations led us to the surprising conclusion that {alpha}Mbeta2, an integrin involved in transendothelial migration of EOS (22) but heretofore not implicated in adhesion to VCAM-1, mediates adhesion of unactivated EOS to module 4 and of IL-5-stimulated EOS to both modules 1 and 4.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
EOS Isolation—Human EOS were isolated from peripheral blood by anti-CD16 magnetic bead selection (23, 24). Samples were normal, allergic rhinitic, or allergic asthmatic volunteers. Purity of EOS was greater than 98% as determined by Diff-Quik staining. Viability was at least 99% as assessed by staining with propidium iodide and annexin V-fluorescein isothiocyanate (BD Biosciences). The University of Wisconsin Human Subjects Committee approved the study, and informed consent was obtained before participation of volunteers.

Cell Lines—The human AML14.3D10 and EoL-3 eosinophilic leukemic cell lines were obtained and cultured as described (25). Jurkat T lymphocytic leukemic cells were provided by Laura Kiessling (University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI) and grown in Roswell Park Memorial Institute medium (RPMI) 1640 with 10% FBS, 10 mM HEPES, 1 mM sodium pyruvate, 100 units/ml penicillin, 100 µg/ml streptomycin and subcultured by dilution to 1 x 105/ml twice a week.

Expression of VCAM-1 Constructs—Total RNA from Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells expressing full-length human 6d- or 7d-VCAM-1 (26, 27), a kind gift from Dr. Roy Lobb of Biogen, was purified and reverse-transcribed with the primer sequence 5'-ACGACTAGTTCAGGAGAAAAATAGTCTTTGTTG-3'. The cDNA products were then amplified by PCR with the reverse transcription primer described above in combination with forward primer, 5'-GTCTCCCGGGTTTAAAATCGAGACCACCCCAG-3' to generate cDNA encoding extracellular 6d-VCAM-1 or 7d-VCAM-1 lacking the cytosolic tail and transmembrane region (Fig. 1A). The PCR products encoding 6d-VCAM-1 and 7d-VCAM-1 were 1771 and 2041 bp, respectively, and contained an XmaI site at the 5' end and an SpeI site at the 3' end. PCR fragments were digested with XmaI and SpeI restriction enzymes and cloned in-frame into the pAcGP67.coco plasmid (pCOCO) (28). The pCOCO plasmid containing the DNA insert encoding extracellular 7d-VCAM-1 was used as a template to generate the 4–7VCAM-1, 1–3VCAM-1, and 1–2VCAM-1 constructs (Fig. 1A). The 4–7VCAM-1 construct was PCR-amplified with the following primer sequences: forward primer, 5'-AGAGCCCGGGTTTACTGTTGAGATCTCCCCTGG-3' and reverse primer, 5'-ACGACTAGTTCAGGAGAAAAATAGTCTTTGTTG-3'. The 1–3VCAM-1 construct was PCR-amplified with primer sequences: forward primer, 5'-GTCTCCCGGGTTTAAAATCGAGACCACCCCAG-3', and reverse primer, 5'-CTCAACTAGTAATGGTTTCTCTTGAACAATTAATTCCACC-3'. The 1–2VCAM-1 construct was amplified with primer sequences: forward primer, 5'-GTCTCCCGGGTTTAAAATCGAGACCACCCCAG-3', and reverse primer, 5'-GTAGACTAGTAATTCTTTTACAGCCTGCCTTACTG-3'. The PCR products encoding 4–7VCAM-1, 1–3VCAM-1, and 1–2VCAM-1 were 1176, 886, and 598 bp, respectively, and contained an XmaI site at the 5' end and SpeI site at the 3' end. PCR fragments were digested with XmaI and SpeI and cloned inframe into pCOCO digested beforehand with XmaI and XbaI restriction enzymes. Inserts and reading frames for all constructs were confirmed by DNA sequencing. Constructs and BaculoGold linearized baculovirus DNA transfection module (BD Biosciences) were then cotransfected into SF9 insect cells. Viral recombinants (pass 1 virus) were selected from plaques and used to infect new SF9 monolayers to generate pass two recombinant virus. After a third propagation in SF9 cells, pass 3 virus was used to infect High 5 or SF9 insect cells for protein expression. Recombinant proteins contained a signal sequence that was cleaved off during secretion. Sequences retained in the processed protein that were introduced from pCOCO were ADPG, present on the N terminus, and the thrombin cleavage and His-tag sequence LELVPRGSAAGHHHHHH, at the C terminus. Secreted proteins were purified from medium with nickel-nitrilotriacetic acid beads (Qiagen, Valencia, CA). The 6d-VCAM-1, 7d-VCAM-1, and 4–7VCAM-1 proteins were partly multimerized on non-reduced SDS-PAGE gels, whereas 1–3VCAM-1 and 1–2VCAM-1 were monomeric. For the proteins with a tendency to multimerize, small amounts of nickelnitrilotriacetic acid beads were added to protein solutions to preferentially bind and remove multimers, leaving monomers behind in solution. Recombinant soluble human 6d-VCAM-1, 7d-VCAM-1, 4–7VCAM-1, or 1–3VCAM-1 constructs were produced in High 5 insect cells transfected with recombinant baculoviruses. Recombinant soluble human 1–2VCAM-1 was expressed in SF9 insect cells because protein yield was better in comparison to the yield in High 5 cells. Yields of pure monomers were between 5 and 20 mg/liter concentrations of conditioned medium.

Other Materials—Several of the mAbs have been described previously (25). Other mAbs included: anti-{alpha}D 217I and 240I (both mouse IgG1) (7, 29), a gift from ICOS (Bothell, WA); anti-beta1 4B4 (mouse IgG1), purchased from Coulter (Miami, FL); anti-beta1 MAR 4 (mouse IgG1) and the HUTS-21 (mouse IgG1) and 9EG7 (mouse IgG1) activation-specific mAbs against beta1, purchased from BD Biosciences; anti-{alpha}M (CD11b) 2LPM19c, purchased from Biomeda (Foster City, CA); N29 activation-specific mAb against beta1 (mouse IgG1), purchased from Chemicon (Temecula, CA). mAb 2A6.21 (mouse IgG1) was generated against recombinantly expressed 7d-VCAM-1 by Dr. Mary Ann Accavitti at the Hybridoma Core Facility, University Alabama-Birmingham and demonstrated to react with the LVPRGSAAG sequence in the C-terminal purification tag of the VCAM-1 constructs. Peroxidase-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) and alkaline phosphatase-conjugated donkey anti-mouse IgG (H+L) were from Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories (West Grove, PA). Wortmannin was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich, and LY294002 was purchased from Calbiochem.

Cell Adhesion under Static Conditions—Polystyrene 96-well non-tissue culture-treated plates (BD Biosciences) were coated in triplicate with 100 µl of protein solution in Tris-buffered saline (TBS), pH 8.0, per well for 3 h at 37 °C, decanted, and then blocked for 20 min at 37 °C with heat-inactivated FBS for EOS or BSA rendered free of fatty acids for cell lines. FBS was heat-inactivated by heating to 56 °C for 30 min, mixed every 10 min, and then rapidly cooled in an ice-water bath. For inhibition experiments, mAbs or phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors were added to cells at a final concentration of 10 µg/ml mAbs, 100 nM wortmannin, or 10 µM LY294002. Cells were incubated with mAbs for 5 min at 22 °C or with PI3K inhibitors for 15 min at 37 °C before the addition to wells. EOS were suspended in HBSS, 0.2% BSA at 1 x 104 cells/100 µl, and cell lines were suspended in RPMI 1640, 0.2% BSA at 2 x 105 cells/100 µl. The Ca2+ and Mg2+ concentration of HBSS were 1.2 and 0.9 mM and of RPMI were 0.4 and 0.4 mM, respectively. Cells were added to wells in volumes of 100 µl/well for 1 h at 37 °C, after which the wells were washed 3 times with TBS, pH 8.0. For cell lines, wells were fixed by the addition of 100 µlof 4% paraformaldehyde in TBS for 10 min, stained by the addition of 1% bromphenol blue in 1% acetic acid for 5 min, and washed 3 times with 1% acetic acid, and color was developed by the addition of 100 µl of 10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 10.0. Adherence of EOS was quantified by an assay of EOS peroxidase. Briefly, 100 µl of HBSS was added to wells with 100 µl of a solution containing 0.1% Triton-X100, 1 mM o-phenylenediamine dihydrochloride (Sigma-Aldrich), 1 mM H2O2, and 55 mM Tris, pH 8.0 (30). After 30 min of color development at 22 °C, 50 µl of 4 M H2SO4 was added to quench the reaction. Absorbances for EOS and cell lines were read at 490 and 595 nm, respectively, in an EL microplate reader (Bio-Tek Instruments, Winooski, VT). Percentages of adherent EOS were calculated by dividing the absorbance per experimental well by the absorbance from uncoated wells containing 100% of input EOS and multiplying by 100. Percentages of adherent cell lines were calculated by reference to a parallel experiment in which adherent cells were assayed by both the bromphenol blue method and the CellTiter-Glo luminescent cell viability reagent (Promega, Madison, WI), which can be used to measure both adherent and total cells. Absorbances and signal values were within the linear range of the detector as determined by standard curves for all three methods. Mean absorbances, S.D., or S.E. are indicated and are from experiments performed on at least three separate occasions. For inhibition studies, values are given as percentages of the absorbances obtained in the presence of respective isotype control mAbs.

Cell Adhesion under Flow Conditions—The assay for adhesion under flow conditions was based on our experience with platelets (31) and the experience of others with EOS (32–35). We used a parallel plate flow chamber (Glycotech, Rockville, MD). A silicone rubber gasket with a thickness of 0.254 mm and a flow path width of 2.5 mm was placed on polystyrene 3.5-cm-diameter tissue culture Petri dishes (BD Biosciences) previously coated with VCAM-1 constructs at 220 nM. Coating of dishes was done with 1 ml of protein solution in TBS, pH 8.0, for 2 h at 37 °C, then dishes were washed with TBS and blocked with heat-inactivated FBS for 15 min. The inlet of the flow chamber was connected to a buffer reservoir by silicone tubing, and the outlet was connected with a peristaltic pump to draw fluid through the flow chamber. The chamber was pre-perfused with prewarmed TBS. EOS were suspended in HBSS, 0.2% BSA at 2 x 106 cells/ml (35) and incubated with or without IL-5 (50 pg/ml final concentration) and with mAbs (10 µg/ml) for 5 min at 22 °C before perfusion and placed in a water bath at 37 °C, and the inlet was connected to the EOS suspension. Perfusion was performed at a shear rate of 150 s–1, a rate previously used for purified EOS (34). This rate corresponds to a shear force of 0.15 newtons·m–2 (= 1.5 dyn/cm2), assuming a viscosity value of 0.001 newtons·sm–2 (= 0.01 poise or dyn·s/cm2) (36). This value is within the range of shear force (1–30 dyn/cm2) considered physiological for post-capillary venules, a relevant location for leukocyte extravasation (32, 33, 37). After perfusion for 2 min, the dish was taken out and washed 3 times with TBS. Perfusions were performed within 4 h of EOS purification, and variables were tested in a randomized order that was different among donors. Adherence of EOS was quantified by the EOS peroxidase assay as described above, except that 1 ml of HBSS and 1 ml of substrate solution were added to each dish. After 30 min of color development, 200 µl of this mixture was transferred to a well in a 96-well plate, and 50 µlof4 M H2SO4 was added to quench the reaction. Absorbance was read as above.

Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay—Wells were coated in triplicate with 100 µl of VCAM-1 constructs in TBS, pH 8.0, on polystyrene 96-well non-tissue culture-treated plates (BD Biosciences) for 3 h at 37°C. Subsequent steps were performed in phosphate-buffered saline with 1% BSA. Wells were decanted, blocked with 100 µl of 1% BSA for 15 min at 37 °C, washed, and then incubated for 1 h at 22°C in 100 µl of 1 µg/ml mAb 1.G11B1 or with mAb 2A6.21 diluted 1:50,000 from cell culture supernatant. Wells were washed twice, and 100 µl of alkaline phosphatase-conjugated donkey anti-mouse diluted 1:5000 was added for 1 h at 22 °C. Wells were washed 3 times followed by the addition of 100 µl of 1 mg/ml Sigma 104 phosphatase substrate (Sigma-Aldrich) in TBS, pH 9.0. Absorbances were read at 409 nm in the EL microplate reader.

Flow Cytometric Analysis of Integrin Expression—EOS (4–5 x 105) in 0.2 ml of HBSS, 0.2% BSA or cell lines (4–5 x 105) in RPMI, 0.2% BSA were incubated with or without 50 pg/ml IL-5 (R&D systems, Minneapolis, MN), 1 mM MnCl2 (Sigma-Aldrich), or 100 nM PMA (Sigma-Aldrich) at 37 °C for 20 min along with primary mAbs. Cells were chilled on ice for 5 min, pelleted, washed with 0.25 ml of HBSS or RPMI, resuspended in 0.25 ml of HBSS or RPMI, and then incubated with secondary mAb for 30 min at 4 °C in the dark. Primary mAbs were incubated in final concentrations of 2.5 µg/ml, and secondary mAb fluorescein isothiocyanate-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG was incubated at 20 µg/ml. After secondary mAb incubation, EOS or cell lines were pelleted, fixed by resuspension in 1% paraformaldehyde, 67.5 mM sodium cacodylate, 113 mM NaCl, pH 7.2, stored at 4 °C in the dark, washed with HBSS or RPMI, and analyzed. Fluorescence measurements were collected on a FACSCalibur (BD Biosciences; available through the Flow Cytometry Facility, Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison). Data were collected from 10,000 cells per condition using Cellquest software (BD Biosciences) and analyzed using FlowJo software (Tree Star, Inc., Ashland, OR). Fixed cells were gated based on forward and side scatter. The specific geometric mean channel fluorescence (gMCF) is reported. The specific gMCF was obtained by subtracting the gMCF of the isotype control from the gMCF of the experimental sample according to the following equation, where gMF is geometric mean fluorescence: gMCF = [1024 x (log gMF of experimental sample)] – [1024 x (log gMF of isotype control sample)]. A gMCF value equal to 110 is equivalent to a ratio of the gMF experimental sample to gMF isotype control sample equal to 1.3. Subunits or activation states with values less than 110 were considered either not expressed or not recognized by mAbs.

Statistics—Results were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Dunnett's or Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison post test on GraphPad Prism software or by two-tailed t test where appropriate.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
To learn how EOS interact with modules 1 and 4, we expressed constructs containing the two modules either in combination or separately (Fig. 1A). Soluble recombinant human 6d-VCAM-1, 7d-VCAM-1, 4–7VCAM-1, 1–3VCAM-1, and 1–2VCAM-1 constructs migrated with expected molecular masses of ~66, 76, 45, 34, and 24 kDa, respectively, on non-reduced SDS-PAGE gels (Fig. 1B). The 1–3VCAM-1 construct migrated as a doublet, which is likely the result of differential N-glycosylation of two sites in module 3. A similar difference in apparent molecular weight was also detected previously in immunoprecipitations of soluble 1–3VCAM-1 from transiently transfected COS cells (38).

The coating efficiencies of VCAM-1 constructs on polystyrene microtiter wells were determined by direct enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with two mAbs that recognize different epitopes in recombinant soluble VCAM-1; mAb 1.G11B1 binds an epitope in modules 1–3, and mAb 2A6.21 recognizes an epitope in the C-terminal sequence purification tag introduced into recombinant proteins by the pCOCO expression system based on Western blotting and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays involving VCAM-1 constructs. The 6d-VCAM-1, 7d-VCAM-1, and 4–7VCAM-1 constructs were equally efficient in coating polystyrene, whereas 1–3VCAM-1 coated ~3-fold less efficiently on a molar basis, and there was little or no detectable coating of 1–2VCAM-1 (not shown). To achieve equal coatings of 1–3VCAM-1, we calculated the amount required to match the signal generated from the coating of other VCAM-1 constructs. These calculations were then verified by subsequent enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (not shown). When layers of VCAM-1 coated on glass coverslips were stained and examined by immunofluorescence microscopy, the VCAM-1 layers appeared bright and homogeneous (not shown).

In comparative static adhesion assays, EOS adhered to 6d-VCAM-1 and 7d-VCAM-1 with identical dependence on the coating concentrations of the two proteins, and the two proteins supported equal maximum numbers of adherent EOS (Fig. 2A). Approximately 50% of purified EOS adhered at the highest coating concentrations. The mAbs recognizing {alpha}4 (HP2/1) and beta1 (mAb 13) subunits inhibited adhesion of unstimulated EOS to 6d-VCAM-1 (Fig. 2B) and 7d-VCAM-1 (Fig. 2C). Inhibitory mAbs that recognize subunits of other potential VCAM-1 integrin receptors, including {alpha}D (217I and 240I), beta2 (TS1/18), or beta7 (Fib 504), did not inhibit adhesion of unstimulated EOS to 6d-VCAM-1 or 7d-VCAM-1. Indeed, these mAbs stimulated adhesion. Although there was no significant inhibition of mean adhesion of unstimulated EOS to 6d-VCAM-1 or 7d-VCAM-1 by mAb 2LPM19c recognizing the {alpha}M subunit (Fig. 2C), there was variability in blocking the adhesion to 7d-VCAM-1 (Fig. 2C) such that adhesion of unstimulated EOS from two of five donors to 7d-VCAM-1 was partly inhibited by mAb 2LPM19c. There were no occasions, however, in which anti-{alpha}M partially blocked adhesion to 6d-VCAM-1. The 1–3VCAM-1 construct supported adhesion of EOS; such adhesion was inhibited by mAbs to {alpha}4 and beta1 subunits (not shown). These results indicate that 6d-VCAM-1 and 7d-VCAM-1 are equally efficient in supporting adhesion of unstimulated EOS; {alpha}4beta1 is the major integrin on unstimulated EOS that mediates adhesion to 6d-VCAM-1, 7d-VCAM-1, and 1–3VCAM-1, and {alpha}Mbeta2 may be involved in the adhesion of unstimulated EOS from some donors to 7d-VCAM-1.


Figure 1
View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1.
Schematic and purity of recombinant soluble VCAM-1 constructs. A, schematics of recombinant soluble 6d-VCAM-1, 7d-VCAM-1, 4–7VCAM-1, 1–3VCAM-1, and 1–2VCAM-1 that were expressed in insect cells. B, after protein staining, the purified constructs migrated with expected molecular masses on non-reduced SDS-PAGE gels of 66, 76, 45, 34, and 24 kDa, respectively.

 


Figure 2
View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 2.
Adhesion of EOS to recombinant soluble 6d-VCAM-1 and 7d-VCAM-1. A, the 6d- and 7d-splice forms were coated onto polystyrene 96-well microtiter plates and assayed in cell adhesion of EOS incubated with or without 50 pg/ml IL-5 on 6d-VCAM-1 or 7d-VCAM-1. B–E, antibody blocking of adhesion of unstimulated EOS to 6d-VCAM-1 (B) or 7d-VCAM-1 (C) and of EOS incubated with 50 pg/ml IL-5 to 6d-VCAM-1 (D) or 7d-VCAM-1 (E). Results are the mean and S.E. of adhesions performed in triplicate from five separate donors. p < 0.001 (*) and p < 0.05 (§) comparing adhesion in the presence of the inhibitory mAb to adhesion in the presence of the isotype control mAb; § indicates variable inhibition of two of five donors; *, p < 0.001 represents a stimulation of adhesion in comparison to the adhesion in the presence of the isotype control mAb; one-way ANOVA with Dunnett's post-test.

 


Figure 3
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 3.
Adhesion of EOS to recombinant soluble 4–7VCAM-1. A, the 4–7VCAM-1 construct was coated onto polystyrene 96-well microtiter plates and assayed in adhesion of EOS incubated with or without 50 pg/ml IL-5. Antibody blocking of unstimulated EOS (B) or EOS incubated with IL-5 on 4–7VCAM-1 (C). Results are the mean and S.E. of adhesions performed in triplicate from four separate donors. *, p < 0.001, represents adhesion in the presence of the inhibitory mAb to adhesion in the presence of the isotype control mAb.

 
EOS incubated with IL-5, a cytokine found in the blood and airway of asthmatics (39), exhibit enhanced adhesion to human endothelial cells (40) and diverse ligands, including albumin (7, 8, 41). To learn whether IL-5 stimulates static adhesion to the soluble VCAM-1 splice forms, EOS were incubated with IL-5 and studied in cell adhesion assays. EOS incubated with 50 pg/ml IL-5, a concentration within the physiological range measured in the serum of human asthmatics (42–44), exhibited an ~1.5-fold enhancement in maximum adhesion to both 6d-VCAM-1 (Fig. 2A) and 7d-VCAM-1 (Fig. 2A) and movement of the dose-response curve of adhesion versus coating concentration to the left (Fig. 2A). Unexpectedly, the mAb to beta1 did not inhibit adhesion of IL-5-treated EOS to 6d-VCAM-1 or 7d-VCAM-1, and the mAb to {alpha}4 was less inhibitory of adhesion of IL-5-treated EOS to 6d-VCAM-1 or 7d-VCAM-1 in comparison to unstimulated EOS (compare Fig. 2, D and E to B and C). Instead, antibodies to {alpha}M and beta2 inhibited the adhesion of IL-5-treated EOS to 6d-VCAM-1 (Fig. 2D) and 7d-VCAM-1 (Fig. 2E). Involvement of {alpha}Mbeta2 in adhesion of IL-5-stimulated EOS to 6d-VCAM-1 and 7d-VCAM-1 is consistent with the finding that exposure of EOS to IL-5 induces an increase in reactivity of the CBRM1/5 conformation-sensitive mAb recognizing the I domain of {alpha}M (45, 46).

To investigate whether the differences in integrin usage in static adhesion of EOS to 6d-VCAM-1 and 7d-VCAM-1 were due to module 4, we assayed static adhesion of EOS to 4–7VCAM-1. There was a coating-dependent increase in the adhesion of unstimulated EOS to 4–7VCAM-1 (Fig. 3A), although maximum adhesion was lower in comparison to the adhesion of unstimulated EOS to 6d-VCAM-1 or 7d-VCAM-1 (compare Fig. 2A to 3A). Antibody blocking indicated that unstimulated EOS adhere to 4–7VCAM-1 via contributions from {alpha}4beta1 and {alpha}Mbeta2, since mAbs recognizing {alpha}4, beta1, {alpha}M, and beta2 subunits all inhibited adhesion by ~50% (Fig. 3B). Consistent with the antibody blocking results, incubation of EOS with the structurally unrelated PI3K inhibitors wortmannin or LY294002, which inhibit {alpha}Mbeta2-dependent but not {alpha}4beta1-dependent adhesion of EOS (41), blocked adhesion of unstimulated EOS to 4–7VCAM-1 (Fig. 4A) but did not block adhesion to 6d-VCAM-1 (Fig. 4B). Incubation with IL-5 caused an ~2-fold increase in maximum adhesion of EOS to 4–7VCAM-1 (Fig. 3A). Adhesion after IL-5 treatment was inhibited by mAbs recognizing the {alpha}M or beta2 subunit and not inhibited by mAbs recognizing the {alpha}4or beta1 subunit (Fig. 3C). Incubation of IL-5-treated EOS with wortmannin or LY294002 inhibited adhesion less well to 4–7VCAM-1 compared with without IL-5 (compare Figs. 4, A and C), and there was no inhibition of adhesion to 6d-VCAM-1 after IL-5 stimulation of EOS (Fig. 4D). The adhesion of unstimulated EOS to module 4 of 4–7VCAM-1 is, therefore, different from the adhesion to constructs containing module 1 in that unstimulated EOS adhere less efficiently to module 4 in comparison to module 1, and adhesion to module 4 involves the use of two integrins, {alpha}4beta1 and {alpha}Mbeta2, whereas adhesion to module 1 involves only {alpha}4beta1. Adhesion of EOS to module 4 is preferentially enhanced by incubation with IL-5. Such enhanced adhesion in response to IL-5 is resistant to inhibition of PI3K.

As described in the introduction, EOS express putative VCAM-1 receptors other than {alpha}4beta1 and {alpha}Mbeta2, namely {alpha}4beta7 and {alpha}Dbeta2 (7–10). Antibodies to beta7, {alpha}D, and beta2 enhanced static adhesion to VCAM-1 by unstimulated EOS (Fig. 2), which complicates the interpretation of antibody blocking experiments. We, therefore, studied the AML14.3D10 and EoL-3 eosinophilic cell lines and Jurkat T lymphocytic cell line, which express simpler repertoires of VCAM-1-interacting integrins in comparison to EOS (Table 1). The {alpha}D subunit was not detected on EoL-3 cells, and beta7 subunit was undetectable on AML14.3D10 cells (Table 1). Neither {alpha}D nor beta7 was detected on Jurkat cells (Table 1). Finally, the {alpha}M subunit was not detected on AML14.3D10, EoL-3, or Jurkat cells (Fig. 5). These flow cytometric results are consistent with the findings that the promoter of the {alpha}M gene is functionally inactive when transfected into Jurkat cells (47), and {alpha}M is expressed on only the most differentiated granulocytes (47).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1
Expression and activation states of integrins of EOS and cell lines

Results are the mean and S.D. of experiments from at least four different donors for EOS or three different experiments for cell lines. gMCF, geometric mean channel fluorescence, detected with fluorescein isothiocyanate-conjugated secondary mAb; data are shown as the mean specific gMCF in assays performed in HBSS buffer for EOS or RPMI for cell lines. Cells were coincubated at 37 °C with the primary mAb for 20 min in the presence or absence of 50 pg/ml IL-5, 1 mM Mn2+, or 100 nM PMA. Epitopes exhibiting a specific gMCF less than 110 are counted as not recognized. Note that in addition to the aforementioned subunits, the following subunits were also expressed by EOS or cell lines: EOS, {alpha}6; AML14.3D10, {alpha}5; EoL-3, {alpha}5, {alpha}6 (very low, variable); Jurkat, {alpha}5.

 


Figure 4
View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 4.
Effect of inhibitors of PI3K on adhesion of EOS. A–B, EOS were preincubated for 15 min at 37 °C in buffer alone or in buffer containing wortmannin (100 nM) or LY294002 (10 µM) before the addition of EOS to 96-well microtiter plates coated with 1000 nM 4–7VCAM-1 (A) or 6d-VCAM-1 (B). C–D, effect of wortmannin (100 nM) or LY294002 (10 µM) on adhesion of EOS stimulated with 50 pg/ml IL-5 to 1000 nM 4–7VCAM-1 (C) or 6d-VCAM-1 (D). Results are the mean and S.E. of adhesions performed in triplicate wells from three separate donors. p < 0.01 (*) and p < 0.05 (§) represents an inhibition of adhesion in the presence of PI3K inhibitors in comparison to buffer alone; one-way ANOVA with Dunnett's post test.

 
AML14.3D10 (Fig. 6A) or EoL-3 cells (Fig. 6B) did not adhere to 4–7VCAM-1 but did adhere to constructs containing module 1, including 6d-VCAM-1 (Fig. 6, A and B), 7d-VCAM-1 (Fig. 6, A and B), and 1–3VCAM-1 (not shown). Similarly, Jurkat cells adhered to 6d-VCAM-1 (Fig. 6C), 7d-VCAM-1 (Fig. 6C), and 1–3VCAM-1 (not shown). Antibody blocking indicated that the adhesion of eosinophilic leukemic and Jurkat cells to 7d-VCAM-1 (Fig. 7) is mediated by {alpha}4beta1 since mAbs recognizing {alpha}4 and beta1 subunits completely blocked the adhesion of AML14.3D10 (Fig. 7A), EoL-3 (Fig. 7B), and Jurkat cells (Fig. 7C). Antibodies recognizing beta2 or beta7 did not inhibit adhesion of cell lines to 7d-VCAM-1. These results, therefore, corroborate the antibody and PI3K blocking results for EOS, which indicate that {alpha}Mbeta2 is importantly involved in adhesion of EOS to module 4, whereas {alpha}4beta1 principally mediates adhesion to module 1.

Even though the eosinophilic cell lines lacking {alpha}Mbeta2 expression did not adhere to 4–7VCAM-1, adhesion of EOS to 4–7VCAM-1 was partially blocked by mAbs to {alpha}4 and beta1 (Fig. 3B), indicating that {alpha}4beta1 contributes to adhesion of EOS to module 4. We, therefore, investigated if adhesion to 4–7VCAM-1 could be induced in the cell lines by activators of {alpha}4beta1. We related adhesion of cell lines to activation states of beta1 by probing with three conformation-sensitive mAbs: N29, HUTS-21, and 9EG7. N29 recognizes an activation-induced epitope in the N-terminal region of the plexins, semaphorins, and integrins (PSI) domain (48), HUTS-21 recognizes an activation-induced epitope in the hybrid domain (49), and 9EG7 recognizes an activation-induced epitope in the epidermal growth factor domains of the "leg" (50, 51). The locations of these epitopes in various structures assumed by {alpha}Vbeta3or {alpha}IIbbeta3 suggest that the antibodies recognize increasingly activated forms in the order N29 < HUTS-21 < 9EG7 (52, 53).

Both eosinophilic cell lines, like purified blood EOS, reacted with N29 (Table 1). EoL-3 cells, unlike purified blood EOS, also reacted with HUTS-21 and 9EG7, and AML14.3D10 cells did not react with either mAb unless stimulated with Mn2+ or PMA (Table 1). Incubation of eosinophilic cell lines with Mn2+ or PMA enhanced {alpha}4beta1-mediated adhesion of AML14.3D10 (Fig. 6A) or EoL-3 (Fig. 6B) cells to 6d-VCAM-1 and 7d-VCAM-1 concomitant with ~6- and 2-fold increases in reactivities of mAb HUTS-21 with AML14.3D10 cells and EoL-3 cells, respectively (Table 1). Even after stimulation with Mn2+ or PMA, however, AML14.3D10 cells failed to adhere to 4–7VCAM-1 (Fig. 6A), and there was only slight adherence of EoL-3 cells to the highest coating concentrations (Fig. 6B). Jurkat cells reacted strongly with mAbs HUTS-21 and 9EG7 (Table 1), adhered to 4–7VCAM-1, and were stimulated to adhere further by Mn2+ or PMA (Fig. 6C). The adhesion of unstimulated and stimulated Jurkat cells to 4–7VCAM-1 was mediated solely by {alpha}4beta1 based on antibody blocking assays (not shown). Thus, in the absence of {alpha}Mbeta2 expression, {alpha}4beta1-mediated adhesion to module 4 apparently requires a highly active form of {alpha}4beta1 that is not present on either unstimulated or IL-5-stimulated EOS (Table 1).


Figure 5
View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 5.
Expression of{alpha}Mbeta2 on EOS and cell lines. A–D, flow cytometric histograms of total{alpha}M(dotted line) and total beta2 (bold line) subunit expression on EOS (A), AML14.3D10 (B), EoL-3 (C), and Jurkat cells (D). The histogram generated from incubation of cells with the isotype control mAb is also shown (normal line).

 
To test the generality of results of the static adhesion assays, we studied adhesion of EOS to insolubilized VCAM-1 in a parallel plate chamber using EOS peroxidase as a readout. In the absence of IL-5, EOS adhered similarly to 6d-VCAM-1 and 7d-VCAM-1 (not shown). The adhesion was specific compared with the FBS blocker (Fig. 8 and not shown). After IL-5 treatment, adhesion under flow to 7d-VCAM-1 was low (Fig. 8A) and not greater than to FBS alone (Fig. 8B). Anti-{alpha}4 inhibited adhesion of unstimulated EOS to 7d-VCAM-1 (Fig. 8B). mAb 2LPM19c against {alpha}M also inhibited adhesion of unstimulated EOS to 7d-VCAM-1 (Fig. 8, A and B). With IL-5-treated EOS, in contrast, there was increased adhesion to 7d-VCAM-1 upon treatment with 2LPM19c, resulting in significant specific adhesion compared with FBS (Fig. 8B), at a level similar to that in the absence of IL-5 and antibody (Fig. 8A).


Figure 6
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 6.
Adhesion of cell lines to VCAM-1 constructs. A–C, recombinant soluble 6d-VCAM-1, 7d-VCAM-1, or 4–7VCAM-1 were coated in equal molar amounts and assayed in adhesion of AML14.3D10 (A), EoL-3 (B) or Jurkat cells (C) incubated either in the presence or absence of 1 mM MnCl2 or 100 nM PMA.

 


Figure 7
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 7.
Integrin {alpha}4beta1 mediates adhesion of cell lines to 7d-VCAM-1. A–C, antibody blocking on 7d-VCAM-1 of AML14.3D10 (A), EoL-3 (B), and Jurkat cells (C). Results are the mean and S.E. of adhesions performed in triplicate wells on three separate occasions. *, p < 0.001, represents an inhibition of adhesion in the presence of the inhibitory mAb in comparison to adhesion in the presence of the isotype control mAb; one-way ANOVA with Dunnett's post-test.

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
The present study has revealed that VCAM-1 modules 1 and 4 have unique functions in static adhesion of human EOS. Adhesion of unstimulated purified blood EOS to constructs containing module 1 was robust and mediated by {alpha}4beta1, whereas there was less adhesion of unstimulated EOS to 4–7VCAM-1 that contained module 4. Adhesion to module 4, surprisingly, was mediated by a combination of {alpha}4beta1 and {alpha}Mbeta2. The enhanced adhesion after IL-5 treatment was sensitive to blocking with anti-{alpha}Mbeta2. The conclusion that module 4 is preferentially engaged by {alpha}Mbeta2 is strengthened by studies involving inhibitors of PI3K that preferentially interfere with {alpha}Mbeta2-mediated adhesion of EOS (41) and by eosinophilic cell lines that do not express {alpha}Mbeta2. Thus, eosinophilic cell lines adhered poorly to 4–7VCAM-1 even when the activity of {alpha}4beta1 was up-regulated by incubation with Mn2+ or PMA and adhesion of unstimulated EOS to 4–7VCAM-1, but not 6d-VCAM-1, was diminished in the presence of the PI3K inhibitors, wortmannin, or LY294002. Jurkat cells, which constitutively express a highly active form of beta1 as assayed by reactivity with activation-specific antibodies, adhered to 4–7VCAM-1 by {alpha}4beta1 even in the absence of stimulation.


Figure 8
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 8.
Adhesion under flow conditions of EOS to recombinant soluble 7d-VCAM-1. 7d-VCAM-1 was coated at 220 nM (17 µg/ml) onto 3.5-cm-diameter polystyrene Petri dishes that were incorporated into a flow chamber, and adhesion of EOS incubated with or without 50 pg/ml IL-5 and antibodies was assayed at a shear rate of 150 s–1. Results are the means and S.E. from 11 experiments with EOS from 4 donors without and 16 experiments with EOS from 7 with IL-5, respectively. A, results are expressed as mean optical density (OD) at 490 nm. B, results expressed as mean optical density (OD) at 490 nm as the percentage of mean isotype control for each donor. p < 0.01 (**) and p < 0.05 (*) comparing adhesion in the presence of the integrin mAb to adhesion in the presence of the isotype control mAb. p < 0.01 ({dagger}{dagger}) and p < 0.05 ({dagger}) compared to adhesion on FBS; t test.

 
Tandem duplication of modules of VCAM-1, therefore, has resulted in two binding sites that interact with distinct allosteric populations of {alpha}4beta1 and {alpha}Mbeta2 on EOS. The conclusion that VCAM-1 contains distinct sites of integrin recognition is consistent with deletion, mutagenesis, and antibody blocking studies. Indeed, although COS cells expressing 7d-VCAM-1 missing module 1 support adhesion of Ramos cells, a construct both missing module 1 and containing a mutation of glutamine or leucine to serine or alanine in the QIDSPL motif of module 4 fails to support adhesion (12). Transfected CHO cells expressing a form of 7d-VCAM-1 containing only modules 1–3 or 4–7 support adhesion of B lymphoma cells, and deletion of both modules 1 and 4 completely abrogates the adhesion (19). The 4B9 mAb recognizing module 1 of 7d-VCAM-1 does not completely block adhesion of Ramos cells to IL-1-stimulated HUVEC monolayers, whereas coincubation of monolayers with GH12 mAb recognizing module 4 in combination with 4B9 completely abolishes such adhesion (21).

Our studies indicate that {alpha}4beta1 in a minimally activated state on EOS recognizes module 1. Module 4 is recognized by {alpha}4beta1 in conjunction with {alpha}Mbeta2. Activation of EOS by IL-5 causes {alpha}Mbeta2 to assume a dominant role in recognition of module 4 and a significant role in recognition of module 1. Studies of lymphocytic and monocytic cells are in accord with these conclusions. The 38-beta1B lymphoma cell line expressing {alpha}4beta1 requires a 2-fold greater Mn2+ concentration to achieve half-maximal attachment to CHO monolayers expressing human modules 4–6 compared with modules 1–3 (19). Adhesion of the U937 human myelomonocytic cell line to module 1 occurs at 37 or 4 °C, whereas adhesion to module 4 occurs at 37 °C but not 4 °C (20). Taken together, these results show that {alpha}4beta1-mediated adhesion to module 4 requires a different, presumably higher activation state, whereas adhesion to module 1 is constitutive and less dependent on activation. These results are consistent with our present findings for EOS and the eosinophilic and T lymphocytic cell lines in that activation by IL-5, Mn2+, or PMA results in enhanced adhesion to module 4, whereas adhesion to module 1 takes place without activation.

Adhesion of EOS to VCAM-1 constructs under flow conditions demonstrated interesting differences from adhesion under static conditions. One difference was that IL-5 did not increase adhesion to 7d-VCAM-1, but rather there was low adhesion to 7d-VCAM-1 under flow. A second difference was that whereas anti-{alpha}M mAb inhibited adhesion of unactivated EOS to 7d-VCAM-1 under flow, adhesion of IL-5-treated EOS to 7d-VCAM-1 was increased, restoring adhesion to the original level of unstimulated EOS in the absence of antibody. The simplest explanation for the results is that in its resting state {alpha}Mbeta2 together with {alpha}4beta1, presumably through cooperation between the two integrins, contributes to arrest, whereas the IL-5-induced conformation of {alpha}Mbeta2 inhibits arrest. Thus, the constitutive state of {alpha}Mbeta2, which is susceptible to PI3K inhibition, is sufficient for it to be involved in adhesion to VCAM-1 under flow. The IL-5-induced conformation of {alpha}Mbeta2, which is refractory to PI3K inhibition, down-regulates adhesion to 7d-VCAM-1.

VCAM-1 is a member of cell surface integrin counter-receptors of the Ig superfamily (54), including ICAM-1, ICAM-2, ICAM-3, and MAdCAM-1 (mucosal addressin cell adhesion molecule 1). Each of these proteins contains putative integrin binding sequences in the linker between beta strands C and D that is at the position of the IDSPL sequence in modules 1 and 4 of human VCAM-1 (55). Integrins {alpha}Mbeta2 (56) and {alpha}Lbeta2 (57) contain an I domain in the {alpha} subunit. Through the I domain, {alpha}Lbeta2 recognizes the IETPL, LETSL, or LETSL binding sequences in module 1 of ICAM-1, ICAM-2, or ICAM-3, respectively (12, 58–62). In contrast, {alpha}4beta1or {alpha}4beta7, which lack an I-domain in {alpha}4 but have the I-like domain in beta1or beta7 (54), ligate the IDSPL sequence in VCAM-1 or IDTSL sequence in MAdCAM-1 (mucosal addressin cell adhesion molecule 1) (55, 63). Thus, beta2 integrins prefer glutamate at the second position of the ligand sequence, whereas {alpha}4 integrins prefer aspartate. Interestingly, {alpha}Mbeta2 has been shown to engage an aspartate-containing DQR sequence in module 3 of ICAM-1 (64), consistent with the possibility that the aspartate-containing sequence in module 4 of VCAM-1 engages {alpha}Mbeta2. {alpha}Mbeta2 also interacts with many ligands that are unrelated to each other, VCAM-1, or the ICAMs (65, 66).

The IDSPL and (I/L)ETSL integrin recognition motifs in VCAM-1 and the ICAMs, respectively, are homologous except for the P/S change in the fourth position (12). In crystal structures of the I domains and the I-like domains, ligand binding involves coordination of a metal ion that is buried in the integrin headpiece to the ligand glutamate or aspartate (46, 52, 67–69). The ligand orients its glutamate or aspartate in a position that facilitates recognition by specific integrins, making extensive use of hydrophobic, hydrophilic, ionic, and hydrogen bonding interactions for docking to the integrin (54). The {alpha}7 helix at the C terminus of the {alpha}M I domain undergoes a 10-Å swing in response to crystallization in Mg2+ versus Mn2+ (46, 69), and IL-5 exposes the epitope within the I domain of {alpha}M recognized by mAb CBRM1/5 (45). Thus, conformational changes within {alpha}Mbeta2 may better orient the integrin for engagement of aspartate residues in VCAM-1.

{alpha}4beta1 of unstimulated EOS partly supported static adhesion to 4–7VCAM-1, whereas {alpha}4beta1 of the eosinophilic cell lines did not support static adhesion even though {alpha}4beta1 was expressed at higher levels and activation states on the eosinophilic cell lines in comparison to EOS. Thus, one must postulate that EOS have mechanisms to acquire recognition of module 4 by {alpha}4beta1 that are different from the activation mechanisms involving Mn2+ or PMA. We previously reported that beta1 of EOS adherent to 7d-VCAM-1, but not of eosinophilic cell lines, localizes to podosomes (25), structures that are important in migration and proteolysis of matrix proteins (70). The difference in adhesive behavior of {alpha}4beta1 between EOS and cell lines may, therefore, be related to differential activation of signaling pathways that lead to podosome formation. In particular, engagement of module 4 by {alpha}Mbeta2 on EOS may alter the adhesive activity of {alpha}4beta1 by integrin trans-regulation or cross-talk (71). T cells expressing a form of {alpha}Lbeta2 with a deleted I-domain display enhanced constitutive beta1 integrin activity (72). Ligation of VCAM-1 by {alpha}4beta1on T cells enhances {alpha}Lbeta2-mediated adhesion (73) and migration (71), indicating that {alpha}Lbeta2 and {alpha}4beta1 are able to synergize and mutually regulate the activity of one another. {alpha}Mbeta2 on EOS may similarly trans-regulate {alpha}4beta1 and render {alpha}4beta1 competent to engage module 4 of VCAM-1. {alpha}4beta1 on eosinophilic cell lines, which do not express {alpha}Mbeta2, is not trans-regulated by {alpha}Mbeta2 and is, therefore, unable to ligate module 4. Trans-regulation may also explain the puzzling finding of stimulation of static adhesion of EOS to 6d-VCAM-1 and 7d-VCAM-1 after incubation with mAbs recognizing beta2, beta7, or {alpha}D subunits (Fig. 2, B and C), i.e. engagement of beta2or beta7 integrins by antibodies may trans-regulate {alpha}4beta1. Similarly, a possible explanation to the increased adhesion of IL-5-treated EOS to 7d-VCAM-1 under flow after preincubation with anti-{alpha}M is that the mAb, when interacting with the IL-5-induced conformation of {alpha}Mbeta2, enhances {alpha}Mbeta2-mediated trans-regulation and stimulates {alpha}4beta1-mediated adhesion. In the case of the beta1 subunit, a 12-amino acid sequence in the beta1 headpiece is recognized by both inhibitory and stimulatory mAbs (74), indicating that there is a fine line between inhibition and activation of integrins.

{alpha}4beta1 supports rolling and firm adhesion of EOS on VCAM-1 (7–9, 75), and {alpha}4beta1 and {alpha}Mbeta2 mediate transmigration of EOS (22, 76). EOS purified from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in antigen challenged human subjects exhibit enhanced {alpha}Mbeta2 activity and increased migration compared with blood EOS (8, 77). Such EOS recruited to the asthmatic airway exhibit increased {alpha}Mbeta2 expression compared with EOS in blood (78–80). Activation of {alpha}Mbeta2 (45, 77) and formation of podosomes of EOS (25), structures believed important in cell migration (70), are induced by exposure to IL-5, which is up-regulated in the blood and airway of human asthmatics (42, 81–83). In addition, the chemokines RANTES (regulated on activation, normal T-cell expressed and secreted), monocyte chemotactic protein-3, and complement activation factor-5 expose an activation-sensitive epitope of {alpha}Mbeta2 (84) and promote migration of blood EOS (84–87).

A multistep scenario linking the enhanced {alpha}Mbeta2 phenotype of bronchoalveolar lavage EOS and recruitment of EOS to the asthmatic lung is that minimally stimulated EOS first roll as a result of {alpha}4beta1 engagement of module 1 of VCAM-1-expressing endothelium and then arrest involving both {alpha}4beta1 and {alpha}Mbeta2, presumably interacting with both modules 1 and 4. Exposure of circulating EOS to IL-5 and allosteric alteration of {alpha}Mbeta2 may disrupt the orchestrated interplay between {alpha}Mbeta2 and {alpha}4beta1, with the paradoxical effect of not facilitating arrest under flow but rather down-regulating it.

A scenario in which {alpha}4beta1 on circulating EOS is primarily responsible for arrest on VCAM-1 and extravasation into lung is supported by the findings that {alpha}4beta1 activation state on EOS in blood, as assessed by reactivity with the activation-sensitive anti-beta1 mAb N29, varies in asthmatic patients, and correlates with decreased lung function in an inhaled corticosteroid withdrawal study and with a measurement of airway inflammation (exhaled nitric oxide) after steroid withdrawal (88). We propose that activation of {alpha}Mbeta2 in response to IL-5 is important in subsequent phases in recruitment of already arrested EOS, possibly for de-adhesion from VCAM-1 to allow transmigration, and for transmigration itself through endothelium and tissue through interaction with various extracellular matrix ligands (77).


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported by Specialized Center of Research Grant HL56396, Hematology Training Grant RTH T32 HL007899, and General Clinical Research Center, National Institutes of Health Grant M01 RR03186. 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: Dept. of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, 4285A Medical Sciences Center, 1300 University Ave., Madison, WI 53706-1532. Tel.: 608-262-1576; Fax: 608-263-4969; E-mail: dfmosher{at}facstaff.wisc.edu.

2 The abbreviations used are: VCAM-1, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1; ANOVA, analysis of variance; EOS, eosinophil; gMF, geometric mean fluorescence; gMCF, geometric mean channel fluorescence; ICAM, intercellular adhesion molecule; PI3K, phosphoinositide 3-kinase; TBS, Tris-buffered saline; FBS, fetal bovine serum; CHO, Chinese hamster ovary; mAb, monoclonal antibody; BSA, bovine serum albumin; HBSS, Hanks' balanced saline solution; PMA, phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate; IL, interleukin. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Heather Gerbyshak, Kristyn Jansen, Anne Brooks, and Julie Sedgwick for eosinophil isolation, Lara Johansson for help with cell culture, Kathleen Schell, Joan Batchelder, Kristin Elmer, Janet Lewis, Joel Puchalski, and Pamela Whitney for help with flow cytometry data collection and analysis, JoAnn Meerschaert for TS1/18 purification, Jaehyung Cho for advice on the flow chamber assay, Laura Kiessling for Jurkat cells, Matyas Sandor for EoL-3 cells, Cassandra Paul for AML14.3D10 cells, and Mary Ann Accavitti for assistance in production of mAb 2A6.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. ten Hacken, N. H., Postma, D. S., Bosma, F., Drok, G., Rutgers, B., Kraan, J., and Timens, W. (1998) Clin. Exp. Allergy 28, 1518–1525[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Ohkawara, Y., Yamauchi, K., Maruyama, N., Hoshi, H., Ohno, I., Honma, M., Tanno, Y., Tamura, G., Shirato, K., and Ohtani, H. (1995) Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 12, 4–12[Abstract]
  3. Wardlaw, A. J. (2001) Clin. Med. 1, 214–218[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Broide, D., and Sriramarao, P. (2001) Immunol. Rev. 179, 163–172[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Humphries, M. J. (2004) Biochem. Soc. Trans. 32, 407–411[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Hynes, R. O. (2002) Cell 110, 673–687[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Grayson, M. H., Van der Vieren, M., Sterbinsky, S. A., Gallatin, M. W., Hoffman, P. A., Staunton, D. E., and Bochner, B. S. (1998) J. Exp. Med. 188, 2187–2191[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Matsumoto, K., Sterbinsky, S. A., Bickel, C. A., Zhou, D. F., Kovach, N. L., and Bochner, B. S. (1997) J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 99, 648–656[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Walsh, G. M., Symon, F. A., Lazarovils, A. L., and Wardlaw, A. J. (1996) Immunology 89, 112–119[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Tachimoto, H., and Bochner, B. S. (2000) Chem. Immunol. 76, 45–62[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Chiu, H. H., Crowe, D. T., Renz, M. E., Presta, L. G., Jones, S., Weissman, I. L., and Fong, S. (1995) J. Immunol. 155, 5257–5267[Abstract]
  12. Vonderheide, R. H., Tedder, T. F., Springer, T. A., and Staunton, D. E. (1994) J. Cell Biol. 125, 215–222[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Taylor, P., Bilsland, M., and Walkinshaw, M. D. (2001) Acta Crystallogr. D. Biol. Crystallogr. 57, 1579–1583[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Clements, J. M., Newham, P., Shepherd, M., Gilbert, R., Dudgeon, T. J., Needham, L. A., Edwards, R. M., Berry, L., Brass, A., and Humphries, M. J. (1994) J. Cell Sci. 107, 2127–2135[Abstract]
  15. Osborn, L., Vassallo, C., Browning, B. G., Tizard, R., Haskard, D. O., Benjamin, C. D., Dougas, I., and Kirchhausen, T. (1994) J. Cell Biol. 124, 601–608[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Cybulsky, M. I., Fries, J. W., Williams, A. J., Sultan, P., Eddy, R., Byers, M., Shows, T., Gimbrone, M. A., Jr., and Collins, T. (1991) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 88, 7859–7863[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Vonderheide, R. H., and Springer, T. A. (1992) J. Exp. Med. 175, 1433–1442[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Hession, C., Tizard, R., Vassallo, C., Schiffer, S. B., Goff, D., Moy, P., Chi-Rosso, G., Luhowskyj, S., Lobb, R., and Osborn, L. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 6682–6685[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Kilger, G., Needham, L. A., Nielsen, P. J., Clements, J., Vestweber, D., and Holzmann, B. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 5979–5984[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Needham, L. A., Van Dijk, S., Pigott, R., Edwards, R. M., Shepherd, M., Hemingway, I., Jack, L., and Clements, J. M. (1994) Cell Adhes. Commun. 2, 87–99[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Abe, Y., Ballantyne, C. M., and Smith, C. W. (1996) J. Immunol. 157, 5061–5069[Abstract]
  22. Jia, G. Q., Gonzalo, J. A., Hidalgo, A., Wagner, D., Cybulsky, M., and Gutierrez-Ramos, J. C. (1999) Int. Immunol. 11, 1–10[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Hansel, T. T., De Vries, I. J., Iff, T., Rihs, S., Wandzilak, M., Betz, S., Blaser, K., and Walker, C. (1991) J. Immunol. Methods 145, 105–110[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Meerschaert, J., Vrtis, R. F., Shikama, Y., Sedgwick, J. B., Busse, W. W., and Mosher, D. F. (1999) J. Immunol. 163, 6217–6227[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Johansson, M. W., Lye, M. H., Barthel, S. R., Duffy, A. K., Annis, D. S., and Mosher, D. F. (2004) Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 31, 413–422[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Chuluyan, H. E., Osborn, L., Lobb, R., and Issekutz, A. C. (1995) J. Immunol. 155, 3135–3144[Abstract]
  27. Carlos, T. M., Schwartz, B. R., Kovach, N. L., Yee, E., Rosa, M., Osborn, L., Chi-Rosso, G., Newman, B., Lobb, R., and et al. (1990) Blood 76, 965–970[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Mosher, D. F., Huwiler, K. G., Misenheimer, T. M., and Annis, D. S. (2002) Methods Cell Biol. 69, 69–81[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Van der Vieren, M., Crowe, D. T., Hoekstra, D., Vazeux, R., Hoffman, P. A., Grayson, M. H., Bochner, B. S., Gallatin, W. M., and Staunton, D. E. (1999) J. Immunol. 163, 1984–1990[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Strath, M., Warren, D. J., and Sanderson, C. J. (1985) J. Immunol. Methods 83, 209–215[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Cho, J., and Mosher, D. F. (2006) Blood 107, 3555–3563[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Sriramarao, P., Norton, C. R., Borgstrom, P., DiScipio, R. G., Wolitzky, B. A., and Broide, D. H. (1996) J. Immunol. 157, 4672–4680[Abstract]
  33. Kitayama, J., Fuhlbrigge, R. C., Puri, K. D., and Springer, T. A. (1997) J. Immunol. 159, 3929–3939[Abstract]
  34. Patel, K. D. (1999) J. Immunol. 162, 6209–6216[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Ulfman, L. H., Joosten, D. P., van der Linden, J. A., Lammers, J. W., Zwaginga, J. J., and Koenderman, L. (2001) J. Immunol. 166, 588–595[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Chang, R. (1981) Physical Chemistry with Applications to Biological Systems, 2nd Ed., pp. 72–77, Macmillan, New York
  37. Brown, D. C., Tsuji, H., and Larson, R. S. (1999) Br. J. Haematol. 107, 86–98[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Pepinsky, B., Hession, C., Chen, L. L., Moy, P., Burkly, L., Jakubowski, A., Chow, E. P., Benjamin, C., Chi-Rosso, G., and Luhowskyj, S. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 267, 17820–17826[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Liu, L. Y., Sedgwick, J. B., Bates, M. E., Vrtis, R. F., Gern, J. E., Kita, H., Jarjour, N. N., Busse, W. W., and Kelly, E. A. (2002) J. Immunol. 169, 6452–6458[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Walsh, G. M., Hartnell, A., Wardlaw, A. J., Kurihara, K., Sanderson, C. J., and Kay, A. B. (1990) Immunology 71, 258–265[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Sano, M., Leff, A. R., Myou, S., Boetticher, E., Meliton, A. Y., Learoyd, J., Lambertino, A. T., Munoz, N. M., and Zhu, X. (2005) Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 33, 65–70[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Alexander, A. G., Barkans, J., Moqbel, R., Barnes, N. C., Kay, A. B., and Corrigan, C. J. (1994) Thorax 49, 1231–1233[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Hughes, J. M., Rimmer, S. J., Salome, C. M., Hodge, L., Liu-Brennan, D., Woolcock, A. J., and Armour, C. L. (2001) Allergy 56, 412–418[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  44. Deng, H., Sun, B., and Zhan, X. (1998) Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi 21, 108–110[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. Zhu, X., Munoz, N. M., Kim, K. P., Sano, H., Cho, W., and Leff, A. R. (1999) J. Immunol. 163, 3423–3429[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Oxvig, C., Lu, C., and Springer, T. A. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 2215–2220[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Hickstein, D. D., Baker, D. M., Gollahon, K. A., and Back, A. L. (1992) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 89, 2105–2109[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Mould, A. P., Travis, M. A., Barton, S. J., Hamilton, J. A., Askari, J. A., Craig, S. E., Macdonald, P. R., Kammerer, R. A., Buckley, P. A., and Humphries, M. J. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 4238–4246[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Luque, A., Gomez, M., Puzon, W., Takada, Y., Sanchez-Madrid, F., and Cabanas, C. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 11067–11075[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Lenter, M., Uhlig, H., Hamann, A., Jeno, P., Imhof, B., and Vestweber, D. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 9051–9055[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Bazzoni, G., Shih, D. T., Buck, C. A., and Hemler, M. E. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 25570–25577[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Xiao, T., Takagi, J., Coller, B. S., Wang, J. H., and Springer, T. A. (2004) Nature 432, 59–67[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  53. Xiong, J. P., Stehle, T., Diefenbach, B., Zhang, R., Dunker, R., Scott, D. L., Joachimiak, A., Goodman, S. L., and Arnaout, M. A. (2001) Science 294, 339–345[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Springer, T. A., and Wang, J. H. (2004) Adv. Protein Chem. 68, 29–63[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  55. Newham, P., Craig, S. E., Seddon, G. N., Schofield, N. R., Rees, A., Edwards, R. M., Jones, E. Y., and Humphries, M. J. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 19429–19440[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Diamond, M. S., Staunton, D. E., de Fougerolles, A. R., Stacker, S. A., Garcia-Aguilar, J., Hibbs, M. L., and Springer, T. A. (1990) J. Cell Biol. 111, 3129–3139[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. Rothlein, R., Dustin, M. L., Marlin, S. D., and Springer, T. A. (1986) J. Immunol. 137, 1270–1274[Abstract]
  58. Staunton, D. E., Dustin, M. L., Erickson, H. P., and Springer, T. A. (1990) Cell 61, 243–254[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  59. Staunton, D. E., Dustin, M. L., and Springer, T. A. (1989) Nature 339, 61–64[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  60. de Fougerolles, A. R., Klickstein, L. B., and Springer, T. A. (1993) J. Exp. Med. 177, 1187–1192[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. de Fougerolles, A. R., and Springer, T. A. (1992) J. Exp. Med. 175, 185–190[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  62. de Fougerolles, A. R., Stacker, S. A., Schwarting, R., and Springer, T. A. (1991) J. Exp. Med. 174, 253–267[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  63. Berlin, C., Berg, E. L., Briskin, M. J., Andrew, D. P., Kilshaw, P. J., Holzmann, B., Weissman, I. L., Hamann, A., and Butcher, E. C. (1993) Cell 74, 185–195[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  64. Diamond, M. S., Staunton, D. E., Marlin, S. D., and Springer, T. A. (1991) Cell 65, 961–971[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  65. Davis, G. E. (1992) Exp. Cell Res. 200, 242–252[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  66. Giembycz, M. A., and Lindsay, M. A. (1999) Pharmacol. Rev. 51, 213–340[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  67. Xiong, J. P., Stehle, T., Zhang, R., Joachimiak, A., Frech, M., Goodman, S. L., and Arnaout, M. A. (2002) Science 296, 151–155[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  68. Emsley, J., King, S. L., Bergelson, J. M., and Liddington, R. C. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 28512–28517[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  69. Hogg, N., and Leitinger, B. (2001) J. Leukocyte Biol. 69, 893–898[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  70. Linder, S., and Aepfelbacher, M. (2003) Trends Cell Biol. 13, 376–385[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  71. Rose, D. M., Liu, S., Woodside, D. G., Han, J., Schlaepfer, D. D., and Ginsberg, M. H. (2003) J. Immunol. 170, 5912–5918[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  72. Leitinger, B., and Hogg, N. (2000) Mol. Biol. Cell 11, 677–690[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  73. Chan, J. R., Hyduk, S. J., and Cybulsky, M. I. (2000) J. Immunol. 164, 746–753[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  74. Ni, H., Li, A., Simonsen, N., and Wilkins, J. A. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 7981–7987[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  75. Sriramarao, P., von Andrian, U. H., Butcher, E. C., Bourdon, M. A., and Broide, D. H. (1994) J. Immunol. 153, 4238–4246[Abstract]
  76. Ebisawa, M., Yamada, T., Bickel, C., Klunk, D., and Schleimer, R. P. (1994) J. Immunol. 153, 2153–2160[Abstract]
  77. Barthel, S. R., Jarjour, N. N., Mosher, D. F., and Johansson, M. W. (2006) Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 35, 378–386[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  78. Georas, S. N., Liu, M. C., Newman, W., Beall, L. D., Stealey, B. A., and Bochner, B. S. (1992) Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 7, 261–269[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  79. Sedgwick, J. B., Calhoun, W. J., Vrtis, R. F., Bates, M. E., McAllister, P. K., and Busse, W. W. (1992) J. Immunol. 149, 3710–3718[Abstract]
  80. Kroegel, C., Liu, M. C., Hubbard, W. C., Lichtenstein, L. M., and Bochner, B. S. (1994) J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 93, 725–734[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  81. Lalani, T., Simmons, R. K., and Ahmed, A. R. (1999) Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 82, 317–332 (quiz 332–313)[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  82. Corrigan, C. J., Haczku, A., Gemou-Engesaeth, V., Doi, S., Kikuchi, Y., Takatsu, K., Durham, S. R., and Kay, A. B. (1993) Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 147, 540–547[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  83. Kotsimbos, A. T., and Hamid, Q. (1997) Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 92, Suppl 2, 75–91
  84. Weber, C., Kitayama, J., and Springer, T. A. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 10939–10944[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  85. Rot, A., Krieger, M., Brunner, T., Bischoff, S. C., Schall, T. J., and Dahinden, C. A. (1992) J. Exp. Med. 176, 1489–1495[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  86. Dahinden, C. A., Geiser, T., Brunner, T., von Tscharner, V., Caput, D., Ferrara, P., Minty, A., and Baggiolini, M. (1994) J. Exp. Med. 179, 751–756[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  87. Baggiolini, M., and Dahinden, C. A. (1994) Immunol. Today 15, 127–133[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  88. Johansson, M. W., Barthel, S. R., Swenson, C. A., Evans, M. D., Jarjour, N. N., Mosher, D. F., and Busse, W. W. (2006) J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 117, 1502–1504[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. Biol. Chem.Home page
A. Chigaev, A. Waller, O. Amit, L. Halip, C. G. Bologa, and L. A. Sklar
Real-time Analysis of Conformation-sensitive Antibody Binding Provides New Insights into Integrin Conformational Regulation
J. Biol. Chem., May 22, 2009; 284(21): 14337 - 14346.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
M. W. Johansson, E. A. B. Kelly, W. W. Busse, N. N. Jarjour, and D. F. Mosher
Up-Regulation and Activation of Eosinophil Integrins in Blood and Airway after Segmental Lung Antigen Challenge
J. Immunol., June 1, 2008; 180(11): 7622 - 7635.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Immunol.Home page
L. H. Ulfman, V. M. Kamp, C. W. van Aalst, L. P. Verhagen, M. E. Sanders, K. A. Reedquist, M. Buitenhuis, and L. Koenderman
Homeostatic Intracellular-Free Ca2+ Is Permissive for Rap1-Mediated Constitutive Activation of {alpha}4 Integrins on Eosinophils
J. Immunol., April 15, 2008; 180(8): 5512 - 5519.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Leukoc. Biol.Home page
S. R. Barthel, M. W. Johansson, D. M. McNamee, and D. F. Mosher
Roles of integrin activation in eosinophil function and the eosinophilic inflammation of asthma
J. Leukoc. Biol., January 1, 2008; 83(1): 1 - 12.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
281/43/32175    most recent
M600943200v1
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 Barthel, S. R.
Right arrow Articles by Johansson, M. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barthel, S. R.
Right arrow Articles by Johansson, M. W.
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