Advertisement
JBC

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


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M708822200 on December 19, 2007

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 283, Issue 8, 4612-4621, February 22, 2008
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
283/8/4612    most recent
M708822200v1
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kraut-Cohen, J.
Right arrow Articles by Elson, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kraut-Cohen, J.
Right arrow Articles by Elson, A.
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?

Protein-tyrosine Phosphatase {epsilon} Regulates Shc Signaling in a Kinase-specific Manner

INCREASING COHERENCE IN TYROSINE PHOSPHATASE SIGNALING*

Judith Kraut-Cohen{ddagger}, William J. Muller§, and Ari Elson{ddagger}1

From the {ddagger}Department of Molecular Genetics, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel and the §Molecular Oncology Group and Departments of Biochemistry and Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1A1, Canada

Received for publication, October 25, 2007 , and in revised form, December 18, 2007.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Individual protein tyrosine kinases and phosphatases target multiple substrates; this may generate conflicting signals, possibly within a single pathway. Protein-tyrosine phosphatase {epsilon} (PTP{epsilon}) performs two potentially opposing roles: in Neu-induced mammary tumors, PTP{epsilon} activates Src downstream of Neu, whereas in other systems PTP{epsilon} can indirectly down-regulate MAP kinase signaling. We now show that the latter effect is mediated at least in part via the adaptor protein Shc. PTP{epsilon} binds and dephosphorylates Shc in vivo, reducing the association of Shc with Grb2 and inhibiting downstream ERK activation. PTP{epsilon} binds Shc in a phosphotyrosine-independent manner mediated by the Shc PTB domain and aided by a sequence of 10 N-terminal residues in PTP{epsilon}. Surprisingly, PTP{epsilon} dephosphorylates Shc in a kinase-dependent manner; PTP{epsilon} targets Shc in the presence of Src but not in the presence of Neu. Using a series of point mutants of Shc and Neu, we show that Neu protects Shc from dephosphorylation by binding the PTB domain of Shc, most likely competing against PTP{epsilon} for binding the same domain. In agreement, PTP{epsilon} dephosphorylates Shc in mouse embryo fibroblasts but not in Neu-induced mammary tumor cells. We conclude that in the context of Neu-induced mammary tumor cells, Neu prevents PTP{epsilon} from targeting Shc and from reducing its promitogenic signal while phosphorylating PTP{epsilon} and directing it to activate Src in support of mitogenesis. In so doing, Neu contributes to the coherence of the promitogenic role of PTP{epsilon} in this system.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The human genome contains 90 genes that encode tyrosine kinases (1) and 107 genes that encode tyrosine phosphatases (2). Similar numbers of genes from either category generate products that act on proteins, 85 PTKs2 and 81 PTPs (2). Tyrosine kinases and phosphatases are then vastly outnumbered by their potential substrates. These enzymes target multiple substrates each and may play distinct, sometimes opposite, roles in different physiological circumstances. One such example is PTP1B, which down-regulates insulin receptor signaling and several other growth factor receptor pathways (3, 4) but up-regulates Ras signaling (5). Taken to an extreme, a single enzyme may activate a signaling pathway by targeting one substrate but simultaneously contribute toward inactivating the same pathway via a second substrate.

Nevertheless, the outcomes of signaling pathways are specific, coherent, and reproducible, implying that molecular mechanisms exist to prevent or to control situations where opposite signals can be generated by the same enzyme. Much is known about regulation of PTPs by mechanisms such as proteolysis (6, 7), inhibitory dimerization (8–13), reversible oxidation (14–16), and phosphorylation (13, 17–19). However, it remains unclear how the potential conflicts between the activities of a particular PTP on several of its substrates within a single system are prevented or resolved.

The two major protein forms of PTP{epsilon} are the receptor type (RPTP{epsilon}) and non-receptor type (cyt-PTP{epsilon}) enzymes (20–22). Both forms can support or inhibit mitogenic signaling in a context-dependent manner. We have shown that RPTP{epsilon} supports the transformed phenotype of mouse mammary tumors induced in vivo by an activated Neu transgene. RPTP{epsilon} activates c-Src; lack of RPTP{epsilon} in Neu-induced mammary tumor cells reduced c-Src activity, caused the cells to display aberrant morphology, and reduced their proliferation rate in culture and in vivo (23). Activation of c-Src by RPTP{epsilon} was shown to be dependent upon phosphorylation of the PTP at its C-terminal tyrosine Tyr695 by Neu (24). A Neu-RPTP{epsilon}-Src signaling pathway exists therefore in mammary tumor cells induced by Neu, in which Neu phosphorylates RPTP{epsilon}, thereby driving the phosphatase to activate c-Src and to contribute to the transformed phenotype of these cells (24). On the other hand, a clear role for RPTP{epsilon} and cyt-PTP{epsilon} in down-regulating signaling events was shown in the context of insulin receptor signaling (25–27), ERK and MAPK signaling (28, 29), endothelial cell proliferation (30), and transformation and tumorigenicity of M1 leukemia cells (31). The molecular mechanisms that regulate and balance between these opposing roles remain unclear.

The ShcA gene yields three protein products, p46, p52, and p66. Shc proteins can associate with a variety of activated tyrosine kinase growth factor receptors and can be phosphorylated by them on tyrosines Tyr239/Tyr240/Tyr317 (numbered as in p52 Shc). The phosphorylated Shc proteins serve as adaptors, leading to recruitment of the Grb2-SOS complex and resulting in activation of downstream signaling. p66 Shc was found to be a proapoptotic factor activated in response to oxidative stress (32). In this study, we show that PTP{epsilon} dephosphorylates the three protein products of the ShcA gene following phosphorylation by Src. In so doing, PTP{epsilon} also inhibits the Shc-Grb2 association and phosphorylation of ERK1 and ERK2 further down-stream. In the context of Neu-induced tumor cells, this activity of RPTP{epsilon} should convey an antimitogenic signal, thus antagonizing the promitogenic contribution of RPTP{epsilon} through its activation of Src. Surprisingly, RPTP{epsilon} does not target Shc in cells in which the predominant kinase is Neu, including in Neu-transformed mammary tumor cells, due to strong physical interaction between Neu and Shc. We conclude that Neu balances between two opposing activities of RPTP{epsilon}. Neu phosphorylates RPTP{epsilon} and drives it to activate Src while binding Shc tightly and preventing the phosphatase from dephosphorylating the adaptor molecule. As a result, Neu prevents the potential conflict between these pro- and antimitogenic activities of PTP{epsilon} in mammary tumors, enabling PTP{epsilon} to support mitogenic signaling in a self-consistent and coherent manner.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Materials—The following cDNAs used in this study were described previously: wild-type cyt-PTP{epsilon} (33), D245A cyt-PTP{epsilon} (34), R283M cyt-PTP{epsilon} (28), and Y683F cyt-PTP{epsilon} (33); the N-terminal mutants R4M-, S8M-, T11M-, S22M-, and {Delta}11–26-cyt-PTP{epsilon} (35); RPTP{epsilon} and p67 (36); Y527F Src (23); wild type Neu (NeuN), activated Neu (V644E Neu, NeuNT), and the Tyr -> Phe mutant of NeuNT (Y1024F,Y1144F,Y1201F,Y1226F,Y1227F,Y1253F Neu; Neu NYPD) (37). All of the above cDNAs were cloned into pCDNA3 (Invitrogen). In some cases, PTP{epsilon} or Neu cDNAs were tagged with FLAG or HA at their C-terminal ends. Also used in this study were glutathione S-transferase (GST) fusion proteins of wild-type (WT) Shc, Y239F Shc, Y239F,Y240F Shc, and Y317F Shc, cloned in the pEGB eukaryotic expression vector, kind gifts of Dr. Kodi Ravichandran (University of Virginia) and Dr. Tony Tiganis (Monash University, Australia). Bacterial plasmids for expressing GST fusion proteins of full-length GST as well as its SH2 and PTB domains were a generous gift of Prof. Yechiel Zick (The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel). The GST-Grb2 construct was described previously (33). S154P Shc and R401L Shc were generated from WT Shc by site-directed mutagenesis; a FLAG tag was added to their C termini, and their sequences were verified prior to cloning into pcDNA3.

Antibodies used included rabbit polyclonal anti-PTP{epsilon} (21), anti-Shc (BD Transduction Laboratories, San Jose, CA), antimitogen activated protein kinase (ERK1 and ERK2) (Sigma), anti-phospho-ERK1/ERK2 (Cell Signaling Technology), anti-Tyr(P)317 Shc, and anti-Tyr(P)239/240 Shc (Cell Signaling Technology, Danvers, MA), and anti-Neu (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc., Santa Cruz, CA). Monoclonal antibodies used included anti-glutathione S-transferase (Calbiochem), anti-v-Src (Calbiochem), anti-FLAG (M2) (Sigma), and anti-Grb2 (BD Transduction Laboratories). Anti-phosphotyrosine antibodies were used for immunoprecipitation (clone PY20; Transduction Laboratories) and protein blotting (clone PY99; Santa Cruz Biotechnology).

Cell Culture—Human embryonic kidney (HEK293) cells and SYF cells (immortalized mouse fibroblasts lacking Src, Yes, and Fyn (39)) were grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) (Invitrogen) supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (Invitrogen), 4 mM glutamine, 50 units/ml penicillin, and 50 µg/ml streptomycin. HEK cells were transfected by the calcium phosphate technique as described (33), whereas SYF cells were transfected by the FuGENE 6 transfection reagent (Roche Applied Science). Metabolic labeling of cells was performed at 70% confluence; cells were incubated for 30 min in methionine-deficient DMEM, followed by overnight incubation in similar medium supplemented with [35S]methionine (175 µCi (1000 Ci/mmol) per 5 ml of medium per plate). Spontaneously immortalized embryonic fibroblasts were prepared from PTP{epsilon}-deficient or wild-type mice by the 3T3 method. NIH3T3 cells were transformed by expression of v-Ha-Ras. Both types of cells were grown in DMEM supplemented as above, which, for the embryonic fibroblasts, also contained 6 x 10–5 M β-mercaptoethanol. Mammary tumor cells isolated from spontaneous tumors of mice carrying the V664E Neu transgene and genetically lacking PTP{epsilon} (23) were grown in DMEM supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (Hyclone, Logan, UT) and glutamine and antibiotics as above. RPTP{epsilon} was expressed in these cells by retrovirus-mediated infection as described (23).

Immunoprecipitation and Protein Blot Analysis—Cells or tissues were lysed in buffer A (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 100 mM NaCl, 1% Nonidet P-40), supplemented with protease inhibitors (1 mM N-({alpha}-aminoethyl) benzene-sulfonyl fluoride, 40 µM bestatin, 15 µM E64, 20 µM leupeptin, 15 µM pepstatin; Sigma) and 0.5 mM sodium pervanadate. Pervanadate was replaced with 5 mM sodium iodoacetate when the association between Shc and D245A cyt-PTP{epsilon} was examined. Protein amounts were determined using the Bio-Rad protein assay system with bovine serum albumin as a standard. Immunoprecipitation was performed using 1–3 mg of total cell lysate and protein A and/or protein G-Sepharose beads (Amersham Biosciences or Santa Cruz Biotechnology), as described (24). Eukaryotic GST pull-down studies were performed by rocking 800 µg of cellular proteins with glutathione-agarose beads (Pierce) that had been previously blocked in 1% skim milk, followed by three washes in buffer A. Immunoprecipitated material and crude cell lysates were subject to SDS-PAGE and blotting as described (7).

Purification of Bacterial GST Fusion Proteins—Bacterial GST fusion proteins were grown in Escherichia coli DH5{alpha} bacteria and purified by binding to glutathione-agarose beads (Pierce) previously blocked in 1% milk. Following three washes in NETE buffer (0.5% Nonidet P-40, 20 mM Tris, pH 8, 100 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA), proteins were eluted in 20 mM glutathione, 50 mM Tris, pH 8.0. The quantity and purity of the purified proteins were examined by SDS-PAGE followed by Gel-code staining (Pierce).

In Vitro Dephosphorylation of Shc—Eukaryotic GST-Shc fusion proteins were expressed in HEK293 cells together with Neu or Y527F Src. Cells were lysed in buffer A as above, supplemented with sodium pervanadate, and rocked gently with glutathione-agarose beads (Pierce) for 3 h followed by 10 washes in buffer A. FLAG-tagged cyt-PTP{epsilon} was expressed in HEK293 cells and was immunoprecipitated using anti-FLAG M2 affinity beads (Sigma) followed by three washes with buffer A, two washes with buffer B (100 mM KCl, 0.5 mM EDTA, 20 mM Hepes, pH 7.6, 0.4% Nonidet P-40, 20% glycerol), and two washes with buffer 54K (150 mM NaCl, 50 mM Tris, pH 7.9, 0.5% Triton X-100), all without pervanadate supplement. FLAG-tagged cyt-PTP{epsilon} was then eluted by incubation of the beads with Elution Buffer (20 mM Hepes, pH 7.3, 200 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 0.1 mM EGTA, 1 mg/ml FLAG peptide) (Sigma). The integrity, purity, and amount of GST-Shc and PTP{epsilon} were analyzed by SDS-PAGE followed by silver staining (Bio-Rad) using a bovine serum albumin standard curve. Dephosphorylation reactions were conducted in 150 µl of activity buffer (50 mM MES, pH 7, 0.5 mM dithiothreitol, 0.5 mg/ml bovine serum albumin), to which 100 ng of purified, eluted cyt-PTP{epsilon} and a similar amount of Shc bound to beads were added. Following gentle rocking at 32 °C for 7 h, samples were analyzed by SDS-PAGE.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Shc and PTP{epsilon} Associate in Vivo—Previous studies have shown that PTP{epsilon} can down-regulate MAPK signaling but does so indirectly (28), most likely by targeting an upstream molecule(s). In order to examine this issue, we studied the effect of PTP{epsilon} on the adaptor protein Shc as a possible candidate for mediating these effects. Endogenous Shc proteins formed stable associations with endogenous cyt-PTP{epsilon} or RPTP{epsilon} in several tissues and cell types, including in Ras-transformed NIH3T3 cells, Jurkat T-cells, and mouse brain (Fig. 1). p66 Shc and p52 Shc bound PTP{epsilon}; p46 Shc was not visible in these experiments due to interference of the precipitating antibody heavy chain. Similar association was observed in HEK293 cells, which express endogenous p46 and p52 Shc, upon expression of full-length, WT cyt-PTP{epsilon} or of various other forms of PTP{epsilon} (Fig. 2A). The substrate-trapping mutant D245A cyt-PTP{epsilon} (34, 40) bound cyt-PTP{epsilon} as strongly as WT Shc; similar binding was observed also when the inactive R283M cyt-PTP{epsilon} or Y683F cyt-PTP{epsilon}, which lacks the key phosphorylation site analogous to Tyr695 in RPTP{epsilon}, was used (Fig. 2A). These results indicate that a stable complex containing both cyt-PTP{epsilon} and Shc exists and that this interaction does not require PTP{epsilon} activity or C-terminal phosphorylation of the phosphatase. In contrast, the receptor RPTP{epsilon} and the shorter p67 form associated with Shc less strongly (Fig. 2A). The only structural difference between cyt-PTP{epsilon} and p67 is the presence of a unique sequence of 27 amino acid residues at the N terminus of cyt-PTP{epsilon} (36). In order to determine whether sequence motifs present in this region affect binding to Shc, we examined the ability of a series of N-terminal mutant cyt-PTP{epsilon} proteins to bind Shc. cyt-PTP{epsilon} truncation mutants lacking the first 4, 8, or 11 amino acids tended to bind Shc more strongly than full-length cyt-PTP{epsilon}. Mutants of cyt-PTP{epsilon} lacking residues 11–27 or lacking the first 22 residues bound Shc similar to p67 (Fig. 2B). We conclude that sequences between positions 12 and 22 of cyt-PTP{epsilon} are important for binding Shc, whereas residues 1–4 of cyt-PTP{epsilon} may inhibit this association. No obvious sequence motifs that bind PTB domains are present within this region, possibly suggesting that these residues contribute indirectly to the Shc-cyt-PTP{epsilon} association, as discussed further below.


Figure 1
View larger version (46K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 1.
Endogenous PTP{epsilon} interacts with endogenous Shc. A, Ras-transformed NIH3T3 cell lysates, which express endogenous cyt-PTP{epsilon}, were precipitated with PTP{epsilon} antibodies, and precipitates were blotted against Shc (top) or PTP{epsilon} (bottom; the arrow marks cyt-PTP{epsilon}). Lys, cell lysate; Ab, precipitating antibody; IP, immunoprecipitation; WB, Western blot. B, similar to A using Jurkat T-cells, documenting co-immunoprecipitation of endogenous cyt-PTP{epsilon} with Shc in these cells as well. The arrow (bottom) marks cyt-PTP{epsilon}. C, RPTP{epsilon} binds Shc in brain. p66 and p52 Shc were precipitated from lysates of brains of WT and PTP{epsilon}-deficient (KO) mice. Precipitates were blotted against PTP{epsilon} (top) and Shc (bottom). In all panels, the asterisks mark the heavy chain of the precipitating antibody, which prevents viewing of p46 Shc; molecular mass markers in this and in subsequent figures are in kDa.

 
The Shc-PTP{epsilon} interaction was recapitulated also when bacterially produced GST fusion proteins of various domains of Shc were used to pull down cyt-PTP{epsilon} from lysates of eukaryotic cells. A fusion protein containing the PTB domain of Shc bound cyt-PTP{epsilon} strongly, whereas a protein containing the Shc SH2 domain did not bind cyt-PTP at all (Fig. 2C). Interestingly, a GST fusion of full-length p52 Shc bound cyt-PTP{epsilon} less well than a fusion protein containing only the PTB domain. These results indicate that the Shc-PTP{epsilon} interaction is mediated by the PTB domain of Shc and suggest that other sequences within Shc may antagonize this interaction. Similar binding was observed when the GST-Shc fusion proteins were used to pull down hyperphosphorylated cyt-PTP{epsilon} from cells pretreated with sodium pervanadate, indicating that the Shc-cyt-PTP{epsilon} interaction is independent of tyrosine phosphorylation of the phosphatase (Fig. 2C). The Shc PTB domain binds the nonreceptor type phosphatase PTP-PEST by targeting a tyrosineless NPLH sequence motif located at the C terminus of the PTP (41). cyt-PTP{epsilon} contains a similar sequence, NPSH, at positions 266–269 within its D1 PTP domain. However, mutating the above four residues to alanines did not affect binding of cyt-PTP{epsilon} to Shc, indicating that the NPSH motif is not a target of the Shc PTB domain (not shown). Replacement of tyrosines 239, 240, or 317 on Shc, which play important roles in binding Grb2 and in Shc signaling (42), with nonphosphorylatable phenylalanine residues also had no effect on cyt-PTP{epsilon} binding (not shown). Together with the strong ability of bacterially produced GST-Shc proteins to bind cyt-PTP{epsilon} (Fig. 2C), this result indicates that tyrosine phosphorylation of Shc is also not required for the interaction with cyt-PTP{epsilon}. In all, we conclude that the Shc-cyt-PTP{epsilon} interaction is mediated by the PTB domain of Shc and is supported by residues 12–22 of cyt-PTP{epsilon}; the interaction is constitutive and is independent of the tyrosine phosphorylation status of either Shc or cyt-PTP{epsilon}.


Figure 2
View larger version (55K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 2.
Mechanistic dissection of the PTP{epsilon}-Shc interaction. A, endogenous Shc preferentially binds cyt PTP{epsilon}. HEK293 cells were transfected with FLAG-tagged cDNAs for WT cyt-PTP{epsilon} (cyt), WT RPTP{epsilon} (R), p67 (p67), R283M cyt-PTP{epsilon} (cytRM), D245A cyt-PTP{epsilon} (cytDA), and Y683F cyt-PTP{epsilon} (cytYF). PTP{epsilon} was immunoprecipitated via its FLAG tag, and PTP{epsilon} and associated Shc were detected by blotting with FLAG or Shc antibodies (top two panels). The bottom panel shows expression of endogenous Shc in the cell lysates. B, residues 12–22 of cyt-PTP{epsilon} contribute to Shc binding. Top, sequence of the N terminus of cyt-PTP{epsilon} and schematic representation of the N termini of truncation and deletion mutants of cyt-PTP{epsilon} used. Bottom, binding of PTP{epsilon} molecules to endogenous Shc was examined by co-immunoprecipitation in HEK293 cells (top). Also shown are amounts of precipitated Shc and expression of PTP{epsilon} mutants (second and third panel, respectively). M1 and M28, initiator methionines that give rise to cyt-PTP{epsilon} and p67, respectively (36). {Delta}, {Delta}11–27 cyt-PTP{epsilon}. Bottom, bar diagram showing amounts (mean ± S.E.) of co-precipitated PTP{epsilon}; *, p ≤ 0.023 relative to cyt-PTP{epsilon} by Student's t test, n = 3–4. C, PTP{epsilon} binds the PTB domain of Shc. Lysates of HEK293 cells expressing HA-tagged cyt-PTP{epsilon} were incubated with bacterially produced GST fusion proteins of full-length Grb2, full-length (FL) Shc, the SH2 or PTB domains of Shc, or GST alone. Following immunoprecipitation of PTP{epsilon}, bound GST fusion proteins were detected by blotting for GST (panels 1 and 3). The amount of precipitated cyt-PTP{epsilon} (panels 2 and 4) and input of GST fusion proteins (panel 5) are also shown. Cells were either treated (+V) or not (–V) with 0.5 mM sodium pervanadate prior to lysis. Note that pervanadate treatment increases binding of GST-Grb2 to cyt-PTP{epsilon}, which is dependent upon PTP{epsilon} phosphorylation (33). IP, immunoprecipitation; WB, Western blot.

 
cyt-PTP{epsilon} Reduces Shc Phosphorylation in a Kinase-specific Manner— In order to examine the physiological consequences of the Shc-cyt-PTP{epsilon} interaction, we expressed the phosphatase in cells and examined its effect on phosphorylation of endogenous Shc in 293 cells. Basal phosphorylation of Shc in this system is low, hence Shc was activated by co-expression of PTKs. When the endogenous p46 and p52 forms of Shc were phosphorylated in the presence of activated (Y527F) Src, cyt-PTP{epsilon} reduced their phosphorylation levels significantly (Fig. 3A). Catalytically inactive R283M cyt-PTP{epsilon} did not reduce Shc phosphorylation, indicating that this effect requires PTP{epsilon} activity. Similar results were obtained also when wild-type Src was used (not shown) and when experiments were repeated in fibroblasts lacking endogenous Src, Fyn, and Yes (Fig. 3B). The latter cells also express p66 Shc, whose phosphorylation was reduced in the presence of cyt-PTP{epsilon}. Interestingly, the presence of cyt-PTP{epsilon} did not reduce phosphorylation of Shc when the latter was phosphorylated by Neu (Fig. 3, C and D). The distinction between Neu and Src also affected down-stream signaling events; the presence of cyt-PTP{epsilon} reduced the association of Shc with Grb2 and reduced activation of ERK1 and ERK2 in the presence of Src but not in the presence of Neu (Fig. 3D). Similar effects and a similar distinction between Neu and Src were observed when cyt-PTP{epsilon} was replaced with RPTP{epsilon} (Fig. 3, E and F). In separate experiments, cyt-PTP{epsilon} could not reduce phosphorylation of Shc in the presence of the epidermal growth factor receptor (not shown), suggesting that the "protective" effect of Neu may be shared also by related kinases.

Importantly, PTP{epsilon} affected Shc phosphorylation in a kinase-dependent manner also when endogenous proteins were examined. Phosphorylation of Shc and of ERK was increased in spontaneously immortalized embryonic fibroblasts from mice genetically lacking PTP{epsilon} (28, 34) in comparison with WT cells that express the phosphatase (Fig. 4A). In contrast, phosphorylation of Shc was consistently similar in mammary tumors induced in vivo by activated Neu in mice lacking PTP{epsilon} (23) and in the same cells reconstituted with RPTP{epsilon} (Fig. 4B), in line with observations presented in Fig. 3, D and E. Since cyt-PTP{epsilon} and RPTP{epsilon} affect Shc phosphorylation and downstream signaling in similar manners (Fig. 3, D and E) (results not shown), we believe that this difference in Shc phosphorylation is due to the presence of Neu as the dominant kinase in these mammary tumor cells (Fig. 4B) versus the absence of a single dominant kinase in immortalized fibroblasts (Fig. 4A). We note that in some experiments phosphorylation of ERK1 and ERK2 was unchanged in PTP{epsilon}-deficient mammary tumor cells (e.g. see Fig. 4B), whereas in other studies of these cells, ERK phosphorylation was increased relative to cells expressing RPTP{epsilon}. This suggests that RPTP{epsilon} affects phosphorylation of ERK in this system not only through Shc.


Figure 3
View larger version (50K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 3.
cyt-PTP{epsilon} reduces phosphorylation of Shc in a kinase-specific manner. A, cyt-PTP{epsilon} dephosphorylates Src-phosphorylated Shc. HEK293 cells were transfected with combinations of cyt-PTP{epsilon} or its inactive mutant R283M cyt-PTP{epsilon} (RM), with or without activated (Y527F) Src (YF). Tyrosine-phosphorylated proteins were immunoprecipitated, and phospho-Shc was detected among them using anti-Shc antibodies. B, similar to A, in fibroblasts lacking endogenous Src, Yes, and Fyn (SYF cells). cyt-PTP{epsilon} dephosphorylates endogenous Shc, including p66 Shc, in the presence of Src. The top two panels show different exposures of the same blot. C, PTP{epsilon} cannot dephosphorylate Neu-phosphorylated Shc. HEK293 cells were transfected with wild-type Neu and cyt-PTP{epsilon} as indicated. Phospho-Shc was examined as in A. D, dephosphorylation of Shc by PTP{epsilon} down-regulates downstream signaling events. HEK293 cells expressing cyt-PTP{epsilon}, activated Src, and activated Neu as indicated were analyzed for Shc-Grb2 association, activation of ERK, and phosphorylation of Shc. Except where immunoprecipitation (IP) is indicated, crude cell lysates were used in blotting studies. E, similar to D, using RPTP{epsilon}. F, bar diagram depicting relative amount of phospho-Shc (normalized to precipitated Shc) in the presence of Src, Neu, and the phosphatase as indicated. Shown are the mean ± S.E.; n = 2–5 repeats per bar. *, significant (p ≤ 0.048) by Student's t test. IP, immunoprecipitation; WB, Western blot.

 
Further studies focused on cyt-PTP{epsilon}. A possible explanation for the kinase-dependent ability of cyt-PTP{epsilon} to dephosphorylate Shc is that Src and Neu phosphorylate Shc at distinct sites, some of which may not be dephosphorylated by cyt-PTP{epsilon}. In order to study this possibility, we examined phosphorylation of Shc at tyrosine residues 239, 240, and 317 using phospho-specific antibodies. Neu and Src phosphorylated Shc at these sites equally well (Fig. 5A); in agreement with previous results, cyt-PTP{epsilon} reduced phosphorylation at Tyr239/240 and Tyr317 in the presence of Src but not in the presence of Neu (Fig. 5A). This result indicates that although both kinases can phosphorylate Shc at these critical sites, cyt-PTP{epsilon} is nevertheless prevented from dephosphorylating them in the presence of Neu.


Figure 4
View larger version (49K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 4.
The absence of endogenous PTP{epsilon} increases phosphorylation of Shc in mouse fibroblasts but not in mouse mammary tumors induced by Neu. A, immortalized embryonic fibroblasts prepared from wild-type or PTP{epsilon}-deficient (EKO (34)) mice were examined for Tyr(P)239/240 Shc, Tyr(P)317 Shc, and pERK. *, a nonspecific band recognized by the PTP{epsilon} antibody. The top two panels show different exposures of the same blot. Wild type fibroblasts express cyt-PTP{epsilon}. B, similar study using mouse mammary tumor cells induced in vivo by Neu in EKO mice (M) (23) and similar cells reconstituted with RPTP{epsilon} (RPTP{epsilon}), the form of PTP{epsilon} found in these cells in wild-type mice. G and NG, glycosylated and nonglycosylated forms of RPTP{epsilon}, respectively. Blots are representative of three (A) and four (B) repeats. IP, immunoprecipitation; WB, Western blot.

 
In separate experiments, analysis by two-dimensional gel electrophoresis revealed different migration patterns along the pI axis for Shc isolated from cells expressing Src versus Neu (not shown), strongly suggesting that these kinases do modify Shc covalently, directly or indirectly, in manners that are at least partially distinct. Nevertheless, these distinct modification patterns do not account for kinase-dependent dephosphorylation of Shc, since kinase specificity was not detected when purified Shc was dephosphorylated by cyt-PTP{epsilon} in vitro. In these experiments, Shc and cyt-PTP{epsilon} were expressed separately in HEK293 cells expressing activated Src or Neu, precipitated, and washed extensively; their integrity, purity, and (in the case of Shc) phosphorylation were verified by SDS-PAGE analyses followed by protein blotting or silver staining. When Shc was incubated with cyt-PTP{epsilon}, in vitro kinase specificity was not observed; phospho-Shc was dephosphorylated by cyt-PTP{epsilon} irrespective of whether Shc had been phosphorylated previously by Src or Neu (Fig. 5B). This last result indicates that the inability of cyt-PTP{epsilon} to dephosphorylate Shc in the presence of Neu is not due to covalent modification of Shc itself but rather possibly to interactions of Shc with another molecule.


Figure 5
View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 5.
Mechanistic dissection of the kinase dichotomy. A, PTP{epsilon} dephosphorylates Shc at sites Tyr239/240 and Tyr317. HEK293 cells expressing cyt-PTP{epsilon}, Y527F Src, and Neu, as indicated, were analyzed for phosphorylation of Shc at Tyr239/240 and Tyr317 using phospho-specific antibodies. B, purified PTP{epsilon} can dephosphorylate Shc in vitro irrespective of the phosphorylating kinase. GST-Shc was purified from HEK293 cells expressing Y527F Src or Neu. Following incubation with cyt-PTP{epsilon} that had been purified from separate cells, phosphorylation of GST-Shc was analyzed by protein blotting (top). Also shown are amounts of purified GST-Shc and PTP{epsilon} present (bottom). C, Neu, but not Src, adheres tightly to Shc. HEK293 cells expressing cyt-PTP{epsilon}, FLAG-tagged Shc, Neu (N), or activated Src (S), as indicated, were labeled with [35S]methionine. Shc was precipitated via its FLAG tag, and the precipitates were analyzed by SDS-PAGE on a 6–15% gradient gel. Proteins were transferred to membrane, which was then exposed to film. Proteins noted were identified by probing the membrane with specific antibodies (not shown). IP, immunoprecipitation; WB, Western blot.

 
Neu Binds Shc and Protects It from Dephosphorylation by cyt-PTP{epsilon}—In order to examine molecules that associate with Shc, we expressed this protein in cells that co-expressed either Neu or Src and that had been metabolically labeled with [35S]methionine. Analysis of proteins that co-precipitated with Shc in Neu-expressing cells revealed prominent bands at 180 kDa and at 25 kDa; in agreement with significant previous data published by numerous groups, these bands were subsequently identified by protein blotting as Neu and Grb2, respectively (Fig. 5C) (data not shown). Neu and Grb2 bound Shc strongly and similarly both in the presence or absence of cyt-PTP{epsilon}. Shc associated with Grb2 also when Neu was replaced with Src, but in this case co-expression of cyt-PTP{epsilon} reduced this association significantly; no co-precipitation of Shc and Src was observed (Fig. 5C). These results suggest that Neu itself may be the molecule whose association with Shc protects it from dephosphorylation by cyt-PTP{epsilon}. Alternative possibilities, such as sequestration of PTP{epsilon} by Neu, are less probable, since Neu and Src do not bind PTP{epsilon} or do so very weakly (24) (data not shown).

A significant part of the interactions between Shc and Neu is mediated by the PTB domain of Shc binding individual tyrosine autophosphorylation sites located at the C-terminal region of Neu. Tyrosines 1226/1227 of Neu (numbering as in Ref. 37) are prominent in this respect (37, 43, 44), but binding to additional tyrosines has been described (45, 46). The role of the Shc SH2 domain in binding Neu is not clear, although it has been reported to assist binding (45, 46). We have not observed a significant contribution of the Shc SH2 domain in this respect (see Fig. 7). Shc and Src have been reported to interact under specific conditions (25, 47, 48); although Src does phosphorylate Shc (Figs. 3, 4, 5) (42, 49), we have not observed stable association between both proteins in our system (Fig. 5C) (data not shown). In agreement with the above information, our results suggest that Neu protects Shc from dephosphorylation by physically binding Shc and that Src does not bind Shc as tightly and hence cannot protect it. According to this model, the presence of Src should not prevent Neu from binding Shc and from protecting it from dephosphorylation, leading us to expect that cyt-PTP{epsilon} would not dephosphorylate Shc in the presence of both kinases. In order to evaluate this possibility, we examined phosphorylation of endogenous Shc in HEK293 cells in the presence of both kinases (Fig. 6). Upon expression of Src, robust phosphorylation of Shc was detected; phosphorylation was reduced significantly upon co-expression of cyt-PTP{epsilon} (Fig. 6, lanes 3 and 4). However, upon added expression of Neu, Shc phosphorylation was not reduced and remained at levels observed in cells expressing Src alone (Fig. 6, lanes 3, 4, and 6). This level of phosphorylation was similar to that observed in cells expressing Neu, with or without added cyt-PTP{epsilon} (Fig. 6, lanes 1 and 7). This result indicates that the "protective" effect of Neu dominates over the "permissiveness" of Src.


Figure 6
View larger version (84K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 6.
Neu protects Shc from dephosphorylation also in the presence of Src; disrupting the Shc-Neu association by mutating Neu prevents Neu from protecting Shc from dephosphorylation. WT or Y1024F,Y1144F,Y1201F,Y1226F,Y1227F,Y1253F Neu (YF), which lacks all known autophosphorylation sites, were expressed in HEK293 cells together with Src and cyt-PTP{epsilon} as indicated. The numbers above the top panel represent relative amounts of pShc. Phosphorylation of endogenous Shc and ERK is shown. IP, immunoprecipitation; WB, Western blot.

 
An additional prediction of the above model is that Neu that cannot physically bind Shc would be unable to protect it from dephosphorylation. In order to examine this possibility, we turned to catalytically active Neu in which all known autophosphorylation sites had been mutated (Y1024F,Y1144F,Y1201F,Y1226F,Y1227F,Y1253F Neu; NYPD Neu (37)) and which cannot bind Shc. Indeed, NYPD Neu did not protect Shc from dephosphorylation by cyt-PTP{epsilon} in the presence of Src and did not prevent down-regulation of ERK1 and ERK2 further down-stream (Fig. 6, lanes 3–5).

In order to confirm the results obtained using NYPD Neu, we disrupted the Neu-Shc association in separate experiments by mutating Shc. For this purpose, we used S154P Shc, whose mutated PTB domain cannot bind phosphotyrosine but maintains its phosphotyrosine-independent interactions (50). S154P Shc was FLAG-tagged to distinguish it from endogenous Shc. As expected, S154P Shc bound significantly less Neu and was less phosphorylated by the kinase than wild-type Shc or Shc in which the SH2 domain had been inactivated (R401L Shc; Fig. 7A, top two panels). S154P and R401L Shc bound cyt-PTP{epsilon} similarly to wild-type Shc in the presence of Neu (Fig. 7A, lanes 5–7). In contrast, all three forms of Shc (wild type, S154P, and R401L) were phosphorylated by Src, were dephosphorylated by cyt-PTP{epsilon} in the presence of Src, and bound cyt-PTP{epsilon} equally well (Fig. 7B). These results agree with the central role of the Shc PTB domain in mediating the phosphotyrosine-based interactions between Shc and Neu and with the phosphotyrosine-independent nature of the association between cyt-PTP{epsilon} and Shc. These results also demonstrate that in this system, the Shc SH2 domain does not play a significant role in mediating associations of Shc with Neu, Src, or cyt-PTP{epsilon}.

In order to examine whether S154P Shc, which cannot bind Neu, is protected from dephosphorylation by cyt-PTP{epsilon}, we expressed wild type or S154P Shc in HEK293 cells together with Neu, Src, and cyt-PTP{epsilon} (Fig. 7C). Both WT and S154P Shc were phosphorylated by Src (Fig. 7C, lanes 3 and 4) and were dephosphorylated by cyt-PTP{epsilon} (Fig. 7C, lanes 5 and 6). Additional expression of Neu protected wild-type Shc from dephosphorylation, in agreement with previous results in this study but did not protect S154P Shc from dephosphorylation (Fig. 7C, lanes 7 and 8). In these studies, S154P Shc retained 20.1 ± 8.6% of the phosphorylation of WT Shc (mean ± S.E., n = 3, p = 0.011 by Student's t test). These results and those obtained with the NYPD Neu mutant lead us to conclude that disruption of the association between Shc and Neu prevents Neu from protecting Shc from dephosphorylation by PTP{epsilon}.

Finally, the model by which Shc is protected from dephosphorylation by physical binding to Neu suggests that virtually all phosphorylated Shc found in cells expressing Neu should be associated with and protected by the kinase (and possibly also with other molecules that protect it). In order to verify this, we expressed Neu with or without added cyt-PTP{epsilon} in cells, exhaustively precipitated over 90% of cellular Neu, and examined the distribution of Shc and phospho-Shc between the precipitated material and remaining supernatant. In agreement with the model, all detectable Tyr(P)239/240 Shc was found in the precipitated fraction, whereas significant amounts of nonphosphorylated Shc were found in both the precipitated and nonprecipitated fractions. Similar results were obtained in the presence or absence of cyt-PTP{epsilon} (Fig. 8). We conclude that although not all Shc molecules associate with Neu, phospho-Shc molecules are found only in association with the Neu signaling complex. In all, these results are consistent with tight association between Neu and Shc preventing cyt-PTP{epsilon} from dephosphorylating Shc and down-regulating signaling events further downstream.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Results presented here indicate that cyt-PTP{epsilon} and RPTP{epsilon} can down-regulate phosphorylation of Shc at its major phosphorylation sites Tyr239/240 and Tyr317, thus reducing association of Shc with Grb2 and activation of ERK1 and ERK2 further downstream. The ability of purified cyt-PTP{epsilon} to dephosphorylate purified phospho-Shc in vitro together with presence of both molecules in a stable complex suggests that Shc is a substrate of PTP{epsilon}. PTP{epsilon} down-regulates activity of ERK1 and ERK2 and other mitogen-activated protein kinases in an indirect manner (28); results presented here suggest therefore that Shc is one of the upstream molecules that mediate the effect of PTP{epsilon} on ERK.

Shc and cyt-PTP{epsilon} interact constitutively via the PTB domain of Shc and in a manner supported by the presence of residues 12–22 in cyt-PTP{epsilon}. Of note, most cyt-PTP{epsilon} molecules are cytosolic, whereas ~10% are nuclear and another 20% are membrane-associated. The absence of the first 27 residues of cyt-PTP{epsilon} abolishes membrane localization (36), whereas residues 1–10 are required for nuclear localization (35). Since Shc is often phosphorylated by or associated with membrane-associated molecules, residues 12–22 of cyt-PTP{epsilon} may contribute indirectly to the PTP{epsilon}-Shc interaction by promoting membranal localization of the phosphatase. We note, however, that residues 12–22 are present also in RPTP{epsilon}, which is an integral membrane protein and which binds Shc effectively but apparently more weakly. RPTP{epsilon} contains also unique membrane-spanning and extracellular domains that are absent from cyt-PTP{epsilon} and that may mask the contribution of residues 12–22 to binding Shc in RPTP{epsilon}. Our results also suggest that residues 1–4 of cyt-PTP{epsilon}, which are unique to this form of PTP{epsilon}, decrease association with Shc. Further studies are required to fully resolve this issue.


Figure 7
View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 7.
Disrupting the Shc-Neu association by mutating Shc prevents Neu from protecting Shc from dephosphorylation; an intact PTB domain is required for Shc to bind and be phosphorylated by Neu but not by Src. A, FLAG-tagged WT Shc; S154P Shc (PTB), which carries an inactivating mutation in the PTB domain; R401L Shc (SH2), which carries an inactivating mutation in the SH2 domain; Neu; and cyt-PTP{epsilon} were expressed in HEK293 cells as indicated. Following precipitation of Shc via its FLAG tag, phosphorylation of Shc and its binding to PTP{epsilon} and to Neu were examined by blotting. B, similar to A, examining the ability of activated (Y527F) Src to phosphorylate the various Shc mutants and to affect the Shc-PTP{epsilon} association. C, FLAG-tagged WT or S154P Shc (PTB) was expressed in HEK293 cells together with Src, Neu, and cyt-PTP{epsilon} as indicated. Phosphorylation of precipitated Shc and ERK are shown, as are expression of PTP{epsilon}, Src, and Neu. A–C are representative of 3–4 repeats each. IP, immunoprecipitation; WB, Western blot.

 


Figure 8
View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 8.
All phosphorylated Shc molecules are associated with Neu. A, HEK293 cells expressing FLAG-tagged Neu and untagged cyt-PTP{epsilon} as indicated were lysed; Neu was extensively precipitated via its FLAG tag. Precipitated material and nonprecipitated supernatant (Sup) were examined by protein blotting for the presence of Shc, Tyr(P)239/240 Shc, and Neu. B, expression of cyt-PTP{epsilon} and Neu and levels of endogenous Shc in the cells are shown. IP, immunoprecipitation; WB, Western blot.

 
An unexpected finding in this study was the inability of PTP{epsilon} to dephosphorylate Shc in the presence of Neu, despite being able to do so in the presence of Src or when using purified Shc and PTP{epsilon}. The "protective" effect of Neu in cells is dominant, since the presence of Neu protects Shc from dephosphorylation even in the presence of Src. Further studies strongly suggested that the molecular basis for protection by Neu is its constitutive interaction with Shc, which is mediated by the Shc PTB domain-binding phosphotyrosine residues located in the cytosolic domain of Neu. Indeed, eliminating the phosphotyrosine-binding ability of the Shc PTB domain or mutating the residues in Neu to which this domain can bind disrupted the Shc-Neu association and allowed PTP{epsilon} to dephosphorylate Shc in the presence of catalytically active Neu. Since Shc binds Neu and PTP{epsilon} via the same PTB domain, it is likely that the same Shc molecule cannot bind both Neu and PTP{epsilon} simultaneously. According to this model, Shc molecules that bind Neu are phosphorylated by the kinase and are protected from dephosphorylation by PTP{epsilon} by the tight association with Neu and by their inability to bind PTP{epsilon} (Fig. 9, A and B).


Figure 9
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 9.
Model describing the effect of PTP{epsilon} on Shc in the presence of Src or Neu. A, PTP{epsilon} binds Shc via the latter's PTB domain. PTP{epsilon} can dephosphorylate Shc, thus countering its phosphorylation by Src. Both phosphorylation and dephosphorylation are schematically targeted at the Shc CH1 domain, where Tyr239/240 and Tyr317 are located, although this does not exclude other phosphorylation sites within Shc. B, Shc binds Neu via its PTB domain, thereby preventing PTP{epsilon} from binding the same Shc molecule and protecting it from dephosphorylation. C, Neu plays a dual role versus RPTP{epsilon} in Neu-induced mammary tumors. Neu phosphorylates RPTP{epsilon}, thus driving it to activate Src (24), while binding Shc and preventing RPTP{epsilon} from dephosphorylating the adapter molecule (this study). In so doing, Neu supports a coherent, promitogenic role for RPTP{epsilon}, which the PTP has been shown to play in these cells (23).

 
Previous studies of Neu-induced mammary tumor cells have established that RPTP{epsilon} supports the transformed phenotype of these cells by activating Src (23). In particular, Neu phosphorylates RPTP{epsilon} at its C-terminal tyrosine Tyr695; this phosphorylation event is critical for Src activation, since the nonphosphorylatable Y695F RPTP{epsilon} cannot activate Src (24). Among other results, the present study identifies Shc as a second molecular target of RPTP{epsilon} activity. Shc is an important supporter of growth factor-mediated mitogenesis (e.g. see Refs. 51–53), and its phosphorylation at residues Tyr239/240 and Tyr317 is important in this respect (38, 42, 54, 55). Dephosphorylation of Shc by PTP{epsilon} in the mammary tumor system would then contradict the mitogenic signal initiated by Neu and conveyed in part by RPTP{epsilon}-mediated dephosphorylation of Src. However, this potential for conflicting signals is avoided by the activities of Neu, the predominant kinase in the system. On one hand, Neu phosphorylates RPTP{epsilon} and channels its activity toward Src (24), whereas on the other hand, Neu binds Shc tightly and prevents it from being dephosphorylated by RPTP{epsilon}. Furthermore, the "protective" effect of Neu toward Shc is dominant, ensuring that RPTP{epsilon} is not driven to dephosphorylate Shc as Src activity increases (Fig. 9C). In all, the present study describes a molecular mechanism by which PTP activity is modulated by directing it toward one substrate while avoiding another. In so doing, the potential for the PTP to initiate signals that are potentially conflicting is reduced, and its contribution to cell signaling is made more coherent.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported by the Israel Cancer Research Fund and also by the David and Fela Shapell Family Center for Genetic Disorders Research and the Women's Health Research Center, both at the Weizmann Institute of Science. 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 Molecular Genetics, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel. Tel.: 972-8-934-2331; Fax: 972-8-934-4108; E-mail: ari.elson{at}weizmann.ac.il.

2 The abbreviations used are: PTK, protein-tyrosine kinase; DMEM, Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium; ERK, extracellular signal-regulated kinase; GST, glutathione S-transferase; HEK, human embryonic kidney; PTP, proteintyrosine phosphatase; cyt-PTP{epsilon}, cytosolic isoform of PTP{epsilon}; RPTP{epsilon}, receptor isoform of PTP{epsilon}; SH2, Src homology 2; MES, 4-morpholineethanesulfonic acid; WT, wild-type; PTB, phosphotyrosine-binding. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank colleagues mentioned above for generous gifts of reagents and Dalia Berman-Golan for help in analysis of the results.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Manning, G., Whyte, D. B., Martinez, R., Hunter, T., and Sudarsanam, S. (2002) Science 298, 1912–1934[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Alonso, A., Sasin, J., Bottini, N., Friedberg, I., Osterman, A., Godzik, A., Hunter, T., Dixon, J., and Mustelin, T. (2004) Cell 117, 699–711[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Elchebly, M., Payette, P., Michaliszyn, E., Cromlish, W., Collins, S., Loy, A. L., Normandin, D., Cheng, A., Himms-Hagen, J., Chan, C. C., Ramachandran, C., Gresser, M. J., Tremblay, M. L., and Kennedy, B. P. (1999) Science 283, 1544–1548[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Klaman, L. D., Boss, O., Peroni, O. D., Kim, J. K., Martino, J. L., Zabolotny, J. M., Moghal, N., Lubkin, M., Kim, Y. B., Sharpe, A. H., Stricker-Krongrad, A., Shulman, G. I., Neel, B. G., and Kahn, B. B. (2000) Mol. Cell Biol. 20, 5479–5489[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Dube, N., Cheng, A., and Tremblay, M. L. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101, 1834–1839[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Frangioni, J. V., Oda, A., Smith, M., Salzman, E. W., and Neel, B. G. (1993) EMBO J. 12, 4843–4856[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Gil-Henn, H., Volohonsky, G., and Elson, A. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 31772–31779[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Chagnon, M. J., Uetani, N., and Tremblay, M. L. (2004) Biochem. Cell Biol. 82, 664–675[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. van der Wijk, T., Blanchetot, C., and den Hertog, J. (2005) Methods 35, 73–79[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Stoker, A. W. (2005) J. Endocrinol. 185, 19–33[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Jiang, G., den Hertog, J., and Hunter, T. (2000) Mol. Cell Biol. 20, 5917–5929[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Jiang, G., den Hertog, J., Su, J., Noel, J., Sap, J., and Hunter, T. (1999) Nature 401, 606–610[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Toledano-Katchalski, H., Tiran, Z., Sines, T., Shani, G., Granot-Attas, S., den Hertog, J., and Elson, A. (2003) Mol. Cell Biol. 23, 5460–5471[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Tonks, N. K. (2005) Cell 121, 667–670[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  15. den Hertog, J., Groen, A., and van der Wijk, T. (2005) Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 434, 11–15[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Meng, T. C., Fukada, T., and Tonks, N. K. (2002) Mol. Cell 9, 387–399[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Zheng, X. M., Resnick, R. J., and Shalloway, D. (2000) EMBO J. 19, 964–978[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Zheng, X. M., Resnick, R. J., and Shalloway, D. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 21922–21929[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Chen, M., Chen, S. C., and Pallen, C. J. (2006) J. Biol. Chem. 281, 11972–11980[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Elson, A., and Leder, P. (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92, 12235–12239[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Elson, A., and Leder, P. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 26116–26122[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Nakamura, K., Mizuno, Y., and Kikuchi, K. (1996) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 218, 726–732[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Gil-Henn, H., and Elson, A. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 15579–15586[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Berman-Golan, D., and Elson, A. (2007) Oncogene 26, 7028–7037[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Andersen, J. N., Elson, A., Lammers, R., Romer, J., Clausen, J. T., Moller, K. B., and Moller, N. P. (2001) Biochem. J. 354, 581–590[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Nakagawa, Y., Aoki, N., Aoyama, K., Shimizu, H., Shimano, H., Yamada, N., and Miyazaki, H. (2005) Zool. Sci. (Tokyo) 22, 169–175
  27. Aga-Mizrachi, S., Brutman-Barazani, T., Jacob, A. I., Bak, A., Elson, A., and Sampson, S. R. (2007) Endocrinology, in press
  28. Toledano-Katchalski, H., Kraut, J., Sines, T., Granot-Attas, S., Shohat, G., Gil-Henn, H., Yung, Y., and Elson, A. (2003) Mol. Cancer Res. 1, 541–550[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Wabakken, T., Hauge, H., Finne, E. F., Wiedlocha, A., and Aasheim, H. (2002) Scand. J. Immunol. 56, 195–203[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Thompson, L. J., Jiang, J., Madamanchi, N., Runge, M. S., and Patterson, C. (2001) Am. J. Physiol. 281, H396–H403
  31. Tanuma, N., Shima, H., Shimada, S., and Kikuchi, K. (2003) Oncogene 22, 1758–1762[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Purdom, S., and Chen, Q. M. (2003) Trends Mol. Med. 9, 206–210[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Toledano-Katchalski, H., and Elson, A. (1999) Oncogene 18, 5024–5031[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Peretz, A., Gil-Henn, H., Sobko, A., Shinder, V., Attali, B., and Elson, A. (2000) EMBO J. 19, 4036–4045[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Kraut, J., Volohonsky, G., Toledano-Katchalski, H., and Elson, A. (2002) Exp. Cell Res. 281, 182–189[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Gil-Henn, H., Volohonsky, G., Toledano-Katchalski, H., Gandre, S., and Elson, A. (2000) Oncogene 19, 4375–4384[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Dankort, D. L., Wang, Z., Blackmore, V., Moran, M. F., and Muller, W. J. (1997) Mol. Cell Biol. 17, 5410–5425[Abstract]
  38. Bonfini, L., Migliaccio, E., Pelicci, G., Lanfrancone, L., and Pelicci, P. G. (1996) Trends Biochem. Sci. 21, 257–261[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  39. Klinghoffer, R. A., Sachsenmaier, C., Cooper, J. A., and Soriano, P. (1999) EMBO J. 18, 2459–2471[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Flint, A. J., Tiganis, T., Barford, D., and Tonks, N. K. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 1680–1685[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Charest, A., Wagner, J., Jacob, S., McGlade, C. J., and Tremblay, M. L. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 8424–8429[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Ravichandran, K. S. (2001) Oncogene 20, 6322–6330[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. Dankort, D., Jeyabalan, N., Jones, N., Dumont, D. J., and Muller, W. J. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 38921–38928[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Dankort, D., Maslikowski, B., Warner, N., Kanno, N., Kim, H., Wang, Z., Moran, M. F., Oshima, R. G., Cardiff, R. D., and Muller, W. J. (2001) Mol. Cell Biol. 21, 1540–1551[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Schulze, W. X., Deng, L., and Mann, M. (2005) Mol. Syst. Biol. 1, 2005 0008
  46. Ricci, A., Lanfrancone, L., Chiari, R., Belardo, G., Pertica, C., Natali, P. G., Pelicci, P. G., and Segatto, O. (1995) Oncogene 11, 1519–1529[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Sato, K., Iwasaki, T., and Fukami, Y. (2005) J. Biochem. (Tokyo) 137, 61–67[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Sato, K., Nagao, T., Kakumoto, M., Kimoto, M., Otsuki, T., Iwasaki, T., Tokmakov, A. A., Owada, K., and Fukami, Y. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 29568–29576[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Sato, K., Gotoh, N., Otsuki, T., Kakumoto, M., Aoto, M., Tokmakov, A. A., Shibuya, M., and Fukami, Y. (1997) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 240, 399–404[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  50. Ugi, S., Imamura, T., Ricketts, W., and Olefsky, J. M. (2002) Mol. Cell Biol. 22, 2375–2387[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Rauh, M. J., Blackmore, V., Andrechek, E. R., Tortorice, C. G., Daly, R., Lai, V. K., Pawson, T., Cardiff, R. D., Siegel, P. M., and Muller, W. J. (1999) Mol. Cell Biol. 19, 8169–8179[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Webster, M. A., Hutchinson, J. N., Rauh, M. J., Muthuswamy, S. K., Anton, M., Tortorice, C. G., Cardiff, R. D., Graham, F. L., Hassell, J. A., and Muller, W. J. (1998) Mol. Cell Biol. 18, 2344–2359[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Lai, K. M., and Pawson, T. (2000) Genes Dev. 14, 1132–1145[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Gotoh, N., Toyoda, M., and Shibuya, M. (1997) Mol. Cell Biol. 17, 1824–1831[Abstract]
  55. Lee, M. S., Igawa, T., and Lin, M. F. (2004) Oncogene 23, 3048–3058[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
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
283/8/4612    most recent
M708822200v1
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kraut-Cohen, J.
Right arrow Articles by Elson, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kraut-Cohen, J.
Right arrow Articles by Elson, A.
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 © 2008 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement