Advertisement
JBC

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


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.C600315200 on January 11, 2007

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 282, Issue 8, 5106-5110, February 23, 2007
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
282/8/5106    most recent
C600315200v1
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 Wilson, E. M.
Right arrow Articles by Rotwein, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, E. M.
Right arrow Articles by Rotwein, P.
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?

Selective Control of Skeletal Muscle Differentiation by Akt1*Formula

Elizabeth M. Wilson and Peter Rotwein1

From the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239

Received for publication, December 20, 2006 , and in revised form, January 10, 2007.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-Akt pathway plays a central role in growth, development, and metabolism in both normal and neoplastic cells. In skeletal muscle, Akt has been implicated in regulating regeneration and hypertrophy and in counteracting atrophy. Here we provide evidence that Akt1 and not Akt2 is essential for muscle differentiation. Using a robust model of MyoD-mediated muscle development, in which dominant-negative Akt blocked differentiation, we show that targeted loss of Akt1 was equally inhibitory. Selective elimination of Akt1 had no effect on myoblast viability or proliferation but prevented differentiation by impairing the transcriptional actions of MyoD. In contrast, knockdown of Akt2 had no effect on myoblast survival or differentiation and minimally inhibited MyoD-regulated transcription. Our results define isoform-specific Akt-regulated signaling pathways in muscle cells that act through Akt1 to sustain muscle gene activation and promote differentiation.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The serine-threonine protein kinases of the Akt family have been subjects of intense scrutiny since their discovery in the early 1990s (1, 2). The three Akts share a common structure and ~85% amino acid identity and are activated by growth factors and hormones through similar biochemical mechanisms that are initiated by production of the lipid signaling molecule, phosphatidylinositol-3,4,5 trisphosphate (1, 2). Initial studies of the effects of these proteins established roles for them in cell proliferation, survival, and metabolism (1, 2), whereas more recent analyses in mice revealed distinct developmental functions for each Akt. Akt1 deficiency led to a reduction in somatic growth (3); targeted loss of Akt2 caused insulin resistance and diabetes mellitus and growth impairment (4); and knock-out of Akt3 led to reduced brain size (5). Combined deficiency of Akt1 and Akt2 was associated with severe growth defects and neonatal death (6), whereas targeted loss of Akt1 and Akt3 was lethal in mid-gestation (7).

Skeletal muscle represents a tissue that is responsive to Akt, and Akt action has been linked to skeletal muscle development, regeneration, and hypertrophy through several pathways that culminate in stimulation of protein synthesis, inhibition of atrophy, and prevention of cell death (8, 9). In mice, both Akt1 and Akt2 appear to be important for muscle development as their combined deficiency resulted in severe hypoplasia (6) but also caused defects in other tissues and organs. Despite these observations, it has not been established which Akt might maintain myoblast survival, promote regeneration, or induce hypertrophy. In cultured muscle cells, Akt2 is induced during differentiation, whereas Akt1 is constant (10–12). A constitutively active Akt can stimulate muscle hypertrophy in transgenic mice and tissue culture (13, 14) and can inhibit atrophy induced by denervation (15), but it is likely that this overexpressed protein does not faithfully mimic physiologically relevant signaling pathways. Here we have assessed the roles of Akt1 and Akt2 in muscle. We find through selective gene knockdown that Akt1 is necessary for initiation and maintenance of myoblast differentiation but that Akt2 is dispensable. Reduction of each Akt led to similar alterations in phosphorylation of several Akt substrates, but only loss of Akt1 inhibited activity of the myogenic transcription factor MyoD. Our results define functionally separable Akt-mediated signaling mechanisms that act primarily through Akt1 to promote and sustain muscle differentiation.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Cell Culture—C3H10T1/2 mouse embryonic fibroblasts (ATCC number CCL226) were incubated on gelatin-coated tissue culture dishes (16). Differentiation was initiated at ~95% of confluent density by addition of differentiation medium (DM)2 (Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium plus 2% horse serum (16)).

Construction and Use of Recombinant Adenoviruses—The following have been described: mouse MyoD (Ad-MyoD), dominant-negative Akt (Ad-AktDN), mouse IGF-II in the anti-sense orientation (Ad-IGF-IIAS), tetracycline-inhibited transcriptional activator (Ad-tTA), beta-galactosidase (Ad-beta-Gal) (16, 17). Adenoviruses expressing short hairpin inhibitor RNAs targeting mouse Akt1 or Akt2 mRNAs were prepared after testing three sets of double-stranded oligoribonucleotides for each Akt. Akt-selective hairpin oligonucleotides plus a RNA polymerase III termination signal were cloned into an adenoviral shuttle plasmid 3' to the human H1 RNA promoter (18). The sense strand is as follows: mouse Akt1, 5'-CTAGTGTGAGGTTGACAGAGGAACTTCAAGAGAGTTCCTCTGTCAACCTCACTTTTTGGATCCA-3'; mouse Akt2, 5'-CTAGTGCCAACCTTGGCTGTTACATTCAAGAGATGTAACAGCCAAGGTTGGCTTTTTGGATCCA-3'. Akt-specific sequences are underlined. Adenoviruses were generated, purified on discontinuous cesium chloride gradients, and titered by optical density (16).


Figure 1
View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 1.
Reversible inhibition of MyoD-induced muscle differentiation by dominant-negative Akt. Results are shown of 10T1/2 cells infected with Ad-MyoD followed by infection with either Ad-IGF-IIAS or Ad-AktDN and incubation in DM ± doxycycline (Dox). A, immunoblots of protein lysates for MyoD, myogenin, troponin-T, phospho-AktS473 (pAkt S473), Akt, and {alpha}-tubulin after incubation for 8 or 24 h in DM ± Dox. B, Akt enzymatic assays using GSK-3{alpha} and beta as substrates and immunoprecipitates from cells infected with Ad-MyoD and Ad-AktDN and incubated in DM ± Dox for 0 (control (Con)) or 36 h. One experiment is shown in the inset along with Akt levels in lysates. C, immunocytochemistry for myosin heavy chain (red) and myogenin (green) after incubation for 24 or 48 h in DM ± Dox. Magnification is x200. D, results using a 4x E-box promoter-reporter gene after incubation in DM ± Dox for 24 h. Graphs in B and D represent the mean ± range of two experiments. Luc, luciferase.

 
Infections with Ad-MyoD, Ad-IGF-IIAS, and Ad-AktDN were performed as described (19). For infections with Ad-beta-gal, Ad-shAkt1, or Ad-shAkt2, viruses were added to cells at ~25% of confluent density (multiplicities of infection of 500) followed 24 h later by infection with Ad-MyoD (multiplicity of infection of 125). After an additional 24 h in growth medium, cells were washed, and DM was added.

Immunoblotting—Immunoblots were performed as described (19). Primary antibodies were obtained from Cell Signaling (Beverly, MA) unless otherwise indicated and were used at the following dilutions: anti-Akt (1:2000), anti-phospho-AktSer473 (1:1000), anti-Akt1 (1:2000), anti-Akt2 (1:1000), anti-FoxO3a (1:1000), anti-phospho-FoxO3a (1:500), anti-p70 S6 kinase (1:500), anti-phospho-p70 S6 kinase (1:1000), anti-phospho-GSK-3{alpha}/beta (1:500), anti-MyoD (Pharmingen, 1:3000), anti-GSK-3{alpha}/beta (Upstate Cell Signaling, Lake Placid, NY, 1:1000), anti-{alpha}-tubulin (Sigma-Aldrich, 1:5000), anti-myogenin (F5D, 1:100), and anti-troponin T (CT3, 1:1000, Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank, Iowa City, IA). Conjugated secondary antibodies were from Molecular Probes (Eugene, OR, 1:5000). Akt enzymatic assays were performed as described (16).

Immunocytochemistry—All steps have been described (16), as have calculation of the cell number, fusion index, and myotube area (17).

Luciferase Reporter Gene Assays—Reporter plasmids and luciferase assays have been described (19). Cells were seeded at 1 x 105/12-well dish, and the next day, they were transfected with 0.2 µg of plasmid DNA using TransIT LT-1 (Mirus Corp, Madison, WI). Cells were infected sequentially 16 h later with Ad-beta-gal, Ad-shAkt1, or Ad-shAkt2 or both Ad-shAkt1 and Ad-shAkt2 followed by Ad-MyoD, as above.

RNA Isolation and Analysis—Reverse transcription-PCR was performed with whole cell RNA (16) and the following primers: mouse Akt1 sense strand, 5'-GTCTCTAGGGTCCAGGGCCAAAGTC-3', and antisense, 5'-CATCTAAAAGGACAAGTGCTAGGAG-3'; mouse Akt2 sense, 5'-CCAAGACAGTATTGGGCCCCTTGGA-3', and antisense, 5'-AGCCTGGGATGCTCACTGCTAGGTC-3'; S17 sense, 5'-ATCCCCAGCAAGAAGCTTCGGAACA-3', and antisense, 5'-TATGGCATAACAGATTAAACAGCTC-3'. Results were quantified by densitometry after agarose gel electrophoresis.

Statistical Analysis—Data are presented as mean ± S.D. Statistical significance was determined by paired Student's t test (p < 0.05).


   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Inhibition of Akt Activity Blocks MyoD-mediated Muscle Differentiation—We previously defined an autocrine growth factor circuit involving IGF-II, the IGF-I receptor, and the PI3-kinase-Akt pathway that was necessary for differentiation of muscle cell lines (16, 17) and mesenchymal stem cells acutely converted to myoblasts by MyoD (16). The importance of Akt was assessed in Fig. 1, which shows that muscle differentiation can be reversibly blocked by inhibition of IGF-II production or by dominant-negative Akt (AktDN). Adenoviruses encoding IGF-IIAS or AktDN not only led to loss of induction of Akt phosphorylation at serine 473 but also prevented accumulation of muscle proteins, including myogenin and troponin-T, yet had no effect on adenoviral-derived MyoD (Fig. 1A). AktDN blocked the normal increase in the enzymatic activity of Akt (Fig. 1B) and completely inhibited morphological differentiation (Fig. 1C), as was seen in myoblasts lacking IGF-II (16, 19).


Figure 2
View larger version (65K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 2.
Deficiency of Akt1 prevents MyoD-induced muscle differentiation. A, specificity of knockdown of Akt1 and Akt2. Results are shown measuring mRNAs for Akt1, Akt2, and S17 by reverse transcription-PCR in 10T1/2 cells infected with Ad-MyoD plus Ad-shAkt1, Ad-shAkt2, or both viruses, after incubation in DM for 8 or 24 h. B, inhibition of muscle differentiation by Akt1 deficiency. Results are shown for Akt1, Akt2, myogenin, troponin-T, MyoD, and {alpha}-tubulin by immunoblotting in cells infected with Ad-MyoD plus either Ad-shAkt1 or Ad-shAkt2 or both viruses followed by incubation in DM for 24 or 48 h (ns, nonspecific band). C, immunocytochemistry for troponin-T (red) and myogenin (green) is seen after 0 or 72 h in DM. Nuclei from the same microscopic field are stained with Hoechst 33258 dye. Magnification is x200. Con, control. D, the myotube area was measured after 72 h in DM (*, p < 0.0002 versus other groups). E, the fusion index was calculated after 72 h in DM (*, p < 0.00001 versus other groups). F, the cell number was assessed by counting nuclei after incubation in DM for 0, 24, or 48 h (*, p < 0.04 versus other groups). For D–F, results are presented as mean ± S.D.

 
To address mechanisms by which Akt drives muscle differentiation, we assessed the effects of AktDN on transcriptional actions of MyoD, using a promoter-reporter gene containing four copies of a MyoD-responsive E-box. We found recently that stimulation of the IGF-I receptor by myoblast-derived IGF-II was required for sustained MyoD-mediated muscle gene activation (19). E-box-dependent promoter activity was reduced by 85% by AktDN or IGF-IIAS but increased to control values when doxycycline inhibited production of these molecules (Fig. 1D). Thus, interference with Akt-mediated signaling blocks muscle differentiation by impairing transcriptional actions of MyoD.

Akt1 Is Critical for Initiation and Maintenance of Muscle Differentiation—To address the roles of individual Akt isoforms in differentiation, we developed adenoviruses encoding short hairpin interfering RNAs targeting Akt1 or Akt2 mRNAs. Ad-shAkt1 specifically reduced levels of Akt1 mRNA in MyoD-expressing stem cells by 90% but had no effect on transcripts for Akt2 or S17, and Ad-shAkt2 specifically decreased Akt2 mRNA levels (Fig. 2A). When cells were infected with Ad-shAkt1 and Ad-shAkt2, transcripts for both Akts were eliminated (Fig. 2A).

Knockdown of Akt1 mRNA caused a 90% reduction of Akt1 protein levels but did not prevent the normal increase in Akt2 seen during differentiation (10–12) and did not change the amount of adenoviral-derived MyoD (Fig. 2B). Deficiency of Akt1 led to a marked reduction in myogenin and troponin-T (Fig. 2B) and caused an 80% decrease in myotube formation (Fig. 2, C and D) and a 90% decline in myocyte fusion index when compared with controls (Fig. 2E). It is likely that this residual muscle differentiation reflects the ~15% of cells that were not infected with Ad-shAkt1. Knockdown of Akt2 mRNA caused the near disappearance of Akt2 protein but had little effect on Akt1 or MyoD and did not inhibit induction of myogenin or troponin-T (Fig. 2B). Loss of Akt2 also did not reduce myofiber formation or fusion index (Fig. 2, C–E). The combination of Ad-shAkt1 and Ad-shAkt2 led to the near elimination of both Akt proteins and blocked differentiation to the same extent as Ad-shAkt1 alone (Fig. 2B). We observed identical results in the C2 muscle cell line, where Akt1 deficiency inhibited differentiation at its earliest stages and knockdown of Akt2 did not (supplemental Fig. 1).

Deficiency of either Akt1 or Akt2 did not diminish cell proliferation during incubation in growth medium and did not increase myoblast death during 48 h in DM (Fig. 2F). Only loss of both Akts led to reduction in total cell number after 24 or 48 h in DM (17–20%; Fig. 2F). Overall, the minimal cell death probably reflects the effectiveness of MyoD in sustaining myoblast survival when overexpressed (20), although Akt has been shown to be a key agent in maintaining muscle cell viability (20, 21).

Assessing Signaling Pathways Activated by Akt1 and Akt2 in Muscle Cells—To address mechanisms by which Akt1 and Akt2 differentially influenced differentiation, we examined the effects of reduction of each protein on selected Akt target proteins. Akt1 deficiency led to a greater decline in total Akt and phosphorylation at serine 473 than did loss of Akt2 (Fig. 3A). Deficiency of Akt1 or Akt2 led to reductions in inhibitory phosphorylation of GSK3{alpha} and beta on serine residues 21 and 9. Akt1 loss caused a greater decline in abundance of p70S6 kinase and in its activating phosphorylation by mTOR than did loss of Akt2. Reduction of Akt1 led to a slight rise in inhibitory phosphorylation of FoxO3a (23), although neither Akt appeared to modify the decline in abundance of FoxO3a seen during incubation in DM. Similar alterations in Akt target proteins were observed in C2 cells (data not shown). Thus, loss of each Akt appears to lead to analogous changes in some signaling proteins and different effects on others.

Lack of Akt1 Impairs Transcriptional Functions of MyoD—We next asked whether Akt deficiency inhibited MyoD-mediated transcription. Myogenin promoter activity was reduced by 85% in cells without Akt1, whereas loss of Akt2 caused a 40% increase. Muscle creatine kinase promoter activity also fell by ~90% in cells lacking Akt1, whereas Akt2 deficiency caused a 50% decline (Fig. 3B). Loss of both Akts yielded results similar to lack of Akt1 (Fig. 3B). Thus, Akt1 and Akt2 exert distinct effects on muscle gene activation. Akt1 appears to be needed for induction of muscle gene expression early in differentiation, thus explaining why its loss prevents differentiation. By contrast, Akt2 is dispensable for early muscle gene expression but may contribute to regulation of later genes.


Figure 3
View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 3.
Alterations in signaling proteins and inhibition of MyoD-mediated transcription in Akt-deficient muscle cells. A, results are shown of 10T1/2 cells infected with Ad-MyoD plus either Ad-shAkt1 or Ad-shAkt2 followed by incubation in DM for 0, 24, or 48 h. Immunoblots of protein lysates are seen for pAktSer473, total Akt, phospho-GSK3{alpha} serine 21 and phospho-GSK3beta serine 9 (pGSK3{alpha}S21/betaS9), pGSK3betaS9 (short exposure), GSK3beta, phospho-p70S6 kinase T389 (p-p70S6KT389), p70S6K, phospho-FoxO3a (pFoxO3a), FoxO3a, and {alpha}-tubulin. ns, nonspecific bands. B, promoter-reporter gene experiments were performed in 10T1/2 cells infected with Ad-MyoD plus either Ad-shAkt1, Ad-shAkt2, or both viruses followed by incubation in DM for 24 h. The left panel shows results with the proximal mouse myogenin promoter (mean ± S.D. of three experiments: *, p < 0.00002, **, p < 0.002, ***, p < 0.002 versus control). The right panel depicts results with the mouse muscle creatine kinase promoter (mean ± S.D. of three experiments: *, p < 0.0006, **, p < 0.003, ***, p < 0.005 versus control). Luc, luciferase. C, model of regulation of muscle differentiation by Akt1 as part of an IGF-II-initiated autocrine amplification pathway. IGF-II, produced by differentiating myoblasts, activates the IGF-I receptor (IGF-IR), adaptor proteins IRS1 and 2, and the PI3-kinase-Akt pathway, including both Akt1 and Akt2. Akt1 then enhances transcriptional actions of MyoD via co-activators p300 and P/CAF. Except for down-regulation of Akt2, all other indicated inhibitory steps block muscle differentiation. Unknown outcomes are depicted by a question mark. siRNA, small interfering RNA. LY, LY294002.

 
Akts in Cell Fate and Function—Our results add to a perplexing literature on specific actions of individual Akts in different cell lineages. For example, viability of suprabasal keratinocytes and their subsequent differentiation was reduced by loss of Akt1 but not by lack of Akt2 and could be restored to normal by preventing cell death with a broad spectrum caspase inhibitor (24). We find that the same inhibitor did not reverse the lack of muscle differentiation seen with Akt1 deficiency (data not shown), indicating that different mechanisms operate in keratinocytes and myoblasts. By contrast, osteoclast differentiation appears to require Akt1 and Akt2 as knockdown of either protein was inhibitory, without reducing cell viability or proliferation (25). In mature adipocytes or myocytes, Akt2 is essential for normal glucose metabolism, whereas Akt1 was dispensable (26, 27). In breast cancer cells, Akt1 appears to control motility and invasiveness, with overexpression being inhibitory and its loss facilitating, as long as Akt2 also was expressed (28). The mechanisms by which Akt1 negatively regulates motility in these cells are not defined. In one study, Akt1 deficiency led to increased Erk activity, which was required for enhanced cell migration (28), whereas in another, Akt1 stimulated degradation of the transcription factor NFAT1 by the E3 ubiquitin-protein isopeptide ligase, MDM2 (29). Thus, depending on the cell or tissue type, Akt1 or Akt2 exert either similar or distinct effects on differentiation, survival, intermediary metabolism, or motility. The steps by which individual Akts couple selectively with specific downstream effector pathways in different cell types to yield unique outcomes remain an enigma.

Akts and Skeletal Muscle—A growing literature supports roles for Akt proteins in muscle growth and regeneration after injury (8, 9). Akts inhibit FoxO transcription factors by direct phosphorylation, thereby blocking expression of FoxO-activated genes (23). In muscle, this prevents induction of atrogin-1/MAFbx and MuRF1, E3 ubiquitin ligases involved in promoting atrophy (30, 31). In transgenic mice, overexpression of active Akt led to extensive hypertrophy (14), as did injection of individual mouse or rat muscles with a similar expression vector (13, 15). Overexpression of active Akt in rodents also reduced muscle atrophy after denervation and enhanced repair after injury, effects blocked by the mTor inhibitor, rapamycin (13, 15), implying that selective pathways downstream of Akt are critical to regeneration. Myofiber hypertrophy was seen in transgenic mice overexpressing IGF-I in muscle (32), and muscle damage was diminished in mice with muscular dystrophy by an IGF-I transgene, coincident with sustained Akt phosphorylation (32). Thus, Akts mediate many actions of IGF-I in muscle, but the specific responsible Akt remains an open question.

We recently established that autocrine signaling mediated by the IGF-I receptor, PI3-kinase, and Akt, was necessary for sustained transcriptional actions of MyoD shortly after onset of muscle differentiation (19). Inhibition of this pathway blocked myogenin gene transcription without altering MyoD or its DNA binding partner E12/E47. Rather, inhibition of IGF signaling reduced accumulation of transcriptional co-activators p300 and P/CAF (p300/CBP-associated factor) on chromatin at the myogenin promoter, thereby preventing histone acetylation and impairing recruitment and activation of RNA polymerase II (19). Taken together with current observations, these results implicate Akt1 as a key intermediate in MyoD-mediated transcriptional pathways in muscle cells, although the mechanisms by which Akt1 sustains activity of MyoD remain to be elucidated. A model outlining our findings is shown in Fig. 3C.

Previous observations indicating that Akt2 increases in abundance during muscle differentiation (10–12) and that its neutralization can inhibit differentiation (10) have led to the idea that Akt2 rather than Akt1 plays a central role in muscle. In contrast, our results demonstrate clearly that Akt1 is critical for induction and maintenance of muscle differentiation, although we did note subtle deficits in Akt2-deficient myotubes. In MyoD-converted 10T1/2 cells, lack of Akt2 led to reduction in overall myofiber length without a decrease in fusion index (Fig. 2, C and E), whereas in C2 cells, its loss was associated with thinner myotubes (supplemental Fig. 1). Two molecules that act downstream of Akt have been linked to myofiber formation, although the mechanisms are unknown. The protein kinase mTor regulates protein synthesis and is activated indirectly by Akt (22). C2C12 myocytes overexpressing an enzymatically inert mTor developed smaller myotubes than did cells with wild-type protein (33). The transcription factor FoxO1 was found to accelerate fusion and myotube formation when overexpressed (34), although other results showed that FoxO1 inhibited differentiation (35).

Active signaling through the IGF-I receptor has been associated with increased cancer risk and progression (36) and accelerated aging in experimental animals (37). At the same time, treatment with IGF-I has been proposed for muscle disorders and to counteract sarcopenia in aging humans (8, 9). Optimal therapeutic use of this growth factor in muscle or other tissues will require a fuller understanding of its key signaling molecules and their mechanisms of action.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* These studies were supported by National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DK42748 to (P. R.). 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

Formula The on-line version of this article (available at http://www.jbc.org) contains a supplemental figure. Back

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Rd., Mail code L224, Portland, OR 97239. Tel.: 503-494-0536; Fax: 503-494-8393; E-mail: rotweinp{at}ohsu.edu.

2 The abbreviations used are: DM, differentiation medium; PI3, phosphatidylinositol 3; IGF, insulin-like growth factor; mTOR, mammalian target of rapamycin; Ad, adenovirus; Dox, doxycycline. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Devon Mundal for assistance.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Brazil, D. P., Yang, Z. Z., and Hemmings, B. A. (2004) Trends Biochem. Sci. 29, 233–242[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Woodgett, J. R. (2005) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 17, 150–157[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Cho, H., Thorvaldsen, J. L., Chu, Q., Feng, F., and Birnbaum, M. J. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 38349–38352[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Cho, H., Mu, J., Kim, J. K., Thorvaldsen, J. L., Chu, Q., Crenshaw, E. B., Kaestner, K. H., Bartolomei, M. S., Shulman, G. I., and Birnbaum, M. J. (2001) Science 292, 1728–1731[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Easton, R. M., Cho, H., Roovers, K., Shineman, D. W., Mizrahi, M., Forman, M. S., Lee, V. M., Szabolcs, M., de Jong, R., Oltersdorf, T., Ludwig, T., Efstratiadis, A., and Birnbaum, M. J. (2005) Mol. Cell Biol. 25, 1869–1878[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Peng, X. D., Xu, P. Z., Chen, M. L., Hahn-Windgassen, A., Skeen, J., Jacobs, J., Sundararajan, D., Chen, W. S., Crawford, S. E., Coleman, K. G., and Hay, N. (2003) Genes Dev. 17, 1352–1365[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Yang, Z. Z., Tschopp, O., Di-Poi, N., Bruder, E., Baudry, A., Dummler, B., Wahli, W., and Hemmings, B. A. (2005) Mol. Cell Biol. 25, 10407–10418[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Glass, D. J. (2003) Nat. Cell Biol. 5, 87–90[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Hoffman, E. P., and Nader, G. A. (2004) Nat. Med. 10, 584–585[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Vandromme, M., Rochat, A., Meier, R., Carnac, G., Besser, D., Hemmings, B. A., Fernandez, A., and Lamb, N. J. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 8173–8179[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Kaneko, S., Feldman, R. I., Yu, L., Wu, Z., Gritsko, T., Shelley, S. A., Nicosia, S. V., Nobori, T., and Cheng, J. Q. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 23230–23235[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Gonzalez, I., Tripathi, G., Carter, E. J., Cobb, L. J., Salih, D. A., Lovett, F. A., Holding, C., and Pell, J. M. (2004) Mol. Cell Biol. 24, 3607–3622[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Pallafacchina, G., Calabria, E., Serrano, A. L., Kalhovde, J. M., and Schiaffino, S. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99, 9213–9218[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Lai, K. M., Gonzalez, M., Poueymirou, W. T., Kline, W. O., Na, E., Zlotchenko, E., Stitt, T. N., Economides, A. N., Yancopoulos, G. D., and Glass, D. J. (2004) Mol. Cell Biol. 24, 9295–9304[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Bodine, S. C., Stitt, T. N., Gonzalez, M., Kline, W. O., Stover, G. L., Bauerlein, R., Zlotchenko, E., Scrimgeour, A., Lawrence, J. C., Glass, D. J., and Yancopoulos, G. D. (2001) Nat. Cell Biol. 3, 1014–1019[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Wilson, E. M., Hsieh, M. M., and Rotwein, P. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 41109–41113[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Wilson, E. M., Tureckova, J., and Rotwein, P. (2004) Mol. Biol. Cell 15, 497–505[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Kuninger, D., Stauffer, D., Eftekhari, S., Wilson, E., Thayer, M., and Rotwein, P. (2004) Hum Gene Ther. 15, 1287–1292[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Wilson, E. M., and Rotwein, P. (2006) J. Biol. Chem. 281, 29962–29971[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Lawlor, M. A., and Rotwein, P. (2000) J. Cell Biol. 151, 1131–1140[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Fujio, Y., Guo, K., Mano, T., Mitsuuchi, Y., Testa, J. R., and Walsh, K. (1999) Mol. Cell. Biol. 19, 5073–5082[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Wullschleger, S., Loewith, R., and Hall, M. N. (2006) Cell 124, 471–484[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Accili, D., and Arden, K. C. (2004) Cell 117, 421–426[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Thrash, B. R., Menges, C. W., Pierce, R. H., and McCance, D. J. (2006) J. Biol. Chem. 281, 12155–12162[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Sugatani, T., and Hruska, K. A. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 3583–3589[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Bae, S. S., Cho, H., Mu, J., and Birnbaum, M. J. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 49530–49536[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Bouzakri, K., Zachrisson, A., Al-Khalili, L., Zhang, B. B., Koistinen, H. A., Krook, A., and Zierath, J. R. (2006) Cell Metab. 4, 89–96[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Irie, H. Y., Pearline, R. V., Grueneberg, D., Hsia, M., Ravichandran, P., Kothari, N., Natesan, S., and Brugge, J. S. (2005) J. Cell Biol. 171, 1023–1034[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Yoeli-Lerner, M., Yiu, G. K., Rabinovitz, I., Erhardt, P., Jauliac, S., and Toker, A. (2005) Mol. Cell 20, 539–550[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Sandri, M., Sandri, C., Gilbert, A., Skurk, C., Calabria, E., Picard, A., Walsh, K., Schiaffino, S., Lecker, S. H., and Goldberg, A. L. (2004) Cell 117, 399–412[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Stitt, T. N., Drujan, D., Clarke, B. A., Panaro, F., Timofeyva, Y., Kline, W. O., Gonzalez, M., Yancopoulos, G. D., and Glass, D. J. (2004) Mol. Cell 14, 395–403[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Barton, E. R., Morris, L., Musaro, A., Rosenthal, N., and Sweeney, H. L. (2002) J. Cell Biol. 157, 137–148[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Park, I. H., and Chen, J. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 32009–32017[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Bois, P. R., and Grosveld, G. C. (2003) EMBO J. 22, 1147–1157[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Hribal, M. L., Nakae, J., Kitamura, T., Shutter, J. R., and Accili, D. (2003) J. Cell Biol. 162, 535–541[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Miller, B. S., and Yee, D. (2005) Cancer Res. 65, 10123–10127[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Tatar, M., Bartke, A., and Antebi, A. (2003) Science 299, 1346–1351[Abstract/Free Full Text]

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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Physiol.Home page
V. C. Foletta, M. J. Prior, N. Stupka, K. Carey, D. H. Segal, S. Jones, C. Swinton, S. Martin, D. Cameron-Smith, and K. R. Walder
NDRG2, a novel regulator of myoblast proliferation, is regulated by anabolic and catabolic factors
J. Physiol., April 1, 2009; 587(7): 1619 - 1634.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Cell Sci.Home page
A. Mukherjee and P. Rotwein
Akt promotes BMP2-mediated osteoblast differentiation and bone development
J. Cell Sci., March 1, 2009; 122(5): 716 - 726.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Mol GenetHome page
A. K. Peter, C. Y. Ko, M. H. Kim, N. Hsu, N. Ouchi, S. Rhie, Y. Izumiya, L. Zeng, K. Walsh, and R. H. Crosbie
Myogenic Akt signaling upregulates the utrophin-glycoprotein complex and promotes sarcolemma stability in muscular dystrophy
Hum. Mol. Genet., January 15, 2009; 18(2): 318 - 327.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCBHome page
H. Ren, P. Yin, and C. Duan
IGFBP-5 regulates muscle cell differentiation by binding to IGF-II and switching on the IGF-II auto-regulation loop
J. Cell Biol., September 8, 2008; 182(5): 979 - 991.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Endocrinol.Home page
A. Mukherjee and P. Rotwein
Insulin-Like Growth Factor-Binding Protein-5 Inhibits Osteoblast Differentiation and Skeletal Growth by Blocking Insulin-Like Growth Factor Actions
Mol. Endocrinol., May 1, 2008; 22(5): 1238 - 1250.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Endocrinol.Home page
A. Mukherjee, E. M. Wilson, and P. Rotwein
Insulin-Like Growth Factor (IGF) Binding Protein-5 Blocks Skeletal Muscle Differentiation by Inhibiting IGF Actions
Mol. Endocrinol., January 1, 2008; 22(1): 206 - 215.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
282/8/5106    most recent
C600315200v1
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 Wilson, E. M.
Right arrow Articles by Rotwein, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, E. M.
Right arrow Articles by Rotwein, P.
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 © 2007 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement