|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | |||||
First published online 9 December 2008
doi: 10.1242/jcs.024554
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Research Article |
Tumour Virology Laboratory, International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB), Trieste, Italy
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: banks{at}icgeb.org)
Accepted 16 September 2008
 |
Summary |
|---|
 Top Summary IntroductionResultsDiscussionMaterials and MethodsReferences |
|---|
Key words: Dlg (Discs Large), Phosphorylation, Cell cycle
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopSummaryIntroductionResultsDiscussionMaterials and MethodsReferences |
|---|
; Kim, 1997; Craven and Bredt, 1998; Gonzalez-Mariscal et al., 2000).
Drosophila Dlg has long been known to be involved in cell growth control, maintenance of cell adhesion and cell polarity (Bilder et al., 2000; Caruana, 2002) in both embryonic and adult tissues and its inactivation results in the neoplastic growth of imaginal disc epithelial cells (Bryant and Schmidt, 1990; Woods and Bryant, 1991; Woods and Bryant, 1993; Woods et al., 1996; Goode and Perrimon, 1997). Transgenic expression of human DLG1 in Drosophila harbouring Dlg mutations reverses the neoplastic phenotype (Thomas et al., 1997), showing retention of the Dlg tumour suppressor function between humans and flies. Specific PDZ domains of DLG1 have been shown to interact with the C-termini of several proteins, including the mitotic kinase TOPK/PBK (Gaudet et al., 2000), the human papillomavirus (HPV) E6 oncoprotein (Kiyono et al., 1997; Lee et al., 1997), the HTLV-1 Tax oncoprotein (Suzuki et al., 1999), the adenoviral E4 ORF1 (Lee et al., 1997) and the APC tumour suppressor protein (Matsumine et al., 1996). Since DLG1 forms a complex with APC, it is thought that it will function in processes that regulate cell polarity and proliferation in response to cell contact in epithelial cells. A recent study has shown that Cdc42 and the Par6-PKC
complex regulate the spatial association of DLG1 and APC, and this physical interaction between them is necessary for the polarisation of the microtubule cytoskeleton (Etienne-Manneville et al., 2005). Interestingly, the interaction of HPV E6, adenoviral E4 ORF1 and HTLV-1 Tax all interfere with the interaction between DLG1 and APC, and thereby perturb normal cell growth control. In the case of HPV E6, this interaction is unique to those HPV types that are associated with the development of malignancy: so-called low risk or benign HPV E6 proteins do not possess the PDZ-binding motifs and do not interact with DLG1. Moreover, HPV E6 can target DLG1 for ubiquitin-mediated degradation (Gardiol et al., 1999; Pim et al., 2000; Kühne et al., 2000), probably by enhancing a normally occurring process, because DLG1 appears to be ubiquitylated in cells even in the absence of E6 (Gardiol et al., 1999). The oncogenic potential of the adenovirus E4 ORF1 protein also correlates with its binding to Dlg1 and other cellular PDZ proteins such as MUPP1, MAGI1 and ZO2 via a C-terminal PDZ-binding motif. However, recent studies have shown that, upon binding to the adenovirus E4 ORF1, DLG1 containing the I3 isoform might also have oncogenic potential by activating the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway (Frese et al., 2006).
Numerous kinases have been shown to participate in the phosphorylation of DLG1 and to induce functional and positional changes in it. These include the p56lck tyrosine kinase which targets the N-terminus of DLG1 and causes coupling of tyrosine kinase and the voltage-gated potassium channel in T cells (Hanada et al., 1997), CaMKII kinase, which regulates Dlg1 localisation at the synapse (Koh et al., 1999), jun N-terminal kinase (JNK), which phosphorylates DLG1 in response to osmotic stress and leads to its accumulation at cell-cell contacts (Massimi et al., 2006), the PAR-1 kinase, which controls postsynaptic targeting of Dlg1 to neuromuscular junctions (Zhang et al., 2007) and the p38 MAPK, which dissociates DLG1 from GKAP and consequently triggers its release from the cytoskeleton (Sabio et al., 2005). Hyperphosphorylation of DLG1 has been shown to lead to its interaction with the β-TrCP ubiquitin ligase receptor leading to ubiquitylation of the protein and a decrease in its stability (Mantovani and Banks, 2003). The PDZ-binding kinase (PBK) (Gaudet et al., 2000) is the only kinase that has so far been linked to phosphorylation of DLG1, which regulates the cell cycle. However there is no direct evidence that DLG1 is a substrate for regulatory cell cycle kinases, nor is there any information on probable biological consequences of its phosphorylation during the cell cycle.
Here we report the phosphorylation-dependent regulation of DLG1 by two principal cell cycle regulatory kinases, the cyclin-dependent kinases 1 and 2 (CDK1 and CDK2). Both phosphorylation events take place on two residues within the N-terminal half of the protein. Most strikingly, mutants of DLG1 that cannot be phosphorylated or that mimic phosphorylation on those sites regulate the localisation and the stability of the protein. These studies directly link DLG1 function to the control by the cell cycle and highlight the general importance of phosphorylation in the function of the protein.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopSummaryIntroductionResultsDiscussionMaterials and MethodsReferences |
|---|
; Geisen and Moroy, 2002; Sherr and McCormick, 2002). Previous studies have also shown that DLG1 can act negatively to suppress G0-G1 to S phase progression (Ishidate et al., 2000; Matsumine et al., 1996), and that it is hyperphosphorylated during M phase (Gaudet et al., 2000). In addition, there are several reports detailing different patterns of expression of DLG1, including the presence of cytoplasmic, cytoskeletal-bound and nuclear forms of the protein (Roberts et al., 2007; Cavatorta et al., 2004), some of which are indeed regulated by different phosphorylation events (Massimi et al., 2004; Sabio et al., 2006). However, no detailed studies have been performed to attempt to link these apparently diverse aspects of DLG1 localisation and function with the cell cycle. Therefore we performed a series of studies to investigate the pattern of DLG1 expression during the cell cycle. To do this, we first analysed the pattern of DLG1 expression in asynchronously growing HaCaT skin epithelial cells. As can be seen from Fig. 1A, DLG1 expression patterns were diverse, with cytoplasmic, diffuse and membrane-bound forms, as well as structures, such as the midbody and the mitotic spindle clearly visible, suggesting potentially different patterns of expression, depending upon the phase of the cell cycle. The specificity of the assay was verified using HaCaT cells stably expressing an shRNA against DLG1 (Massimi et al., 2008). As can be seen from Fig. 1B these cells are devoid of detectable DLG1 protein and the anti-DLG1 antibody used shows no signal in these cells, confirming that the different patterns of expression observed in Fig. 1A is indeed due to specific changes in the pattern of DLG1 expression. To investigate this further we then proceeded to analyse the pattern of DLG1 expression in HaCaT cells that had been synchronised following a block with aphidicolin. Cells were released and fixed at different times and then analysed for the pattern of DLG1 expression by immunofluorescence. The results obtained are shown in Fig. 1C, together with the corresponding FACS analysis in Fig. 1D. In the G1 population, DLG1 is highly membrane bound. However its localisation progressively becomes much more cytoplasmic as the cells progress through the cell cycle, with an overall diffuse staining when the cells become more rounded as they approach M phase. The protein shows a marked relocation to the mitotic spindle at mitosis and it finally accumulates strongly at the midbody at cytokinesis, in agreement with previous studies (Massimi et al., 2003). Taken together, these data suggest that DLG1 is relocalised to different cellular compartments during different phases of the cell cycle.
|
). Since we found that DLG1 is subject to differential patterns of expression during the cell cycle, we hypothesised that other kinases may be involved, two obvious candidates being CDK1 and CDK2. To investigate whether DLG1 could be a substrate for these kinases, we performed in vitro phosphorylation assays with purified enzymes and purified GST-DLG1 fusion protein. As Fig. 2B shows, DLG1 is phosphorylated in vitro by both CDK1 and CDK2, although it is generally a better substrate for CDK2 than for CDK1.
|
). The mutants used spanned the entire sequence of the protein separately: the N-terminus, the three PDZ domains and the C-terminal region, including the SH3 and GUK domains, as shown in Fig. 2A. The in vitro kinase assays were carried out with purified CDK1 and CDK2 (Fig 2C,D, respectively), which map the major sites of phosphorylation to residues within the N-terminus and the PDZ region of DLG1. No detectable, or at best marginal, phosphorylation of the C-terminal fragment was obtained with CDK1 and CDK2, respectively. The DLG1 sequence was then scanned for probable CDK consensus sites (S/T-P-x-R/K, where x represents any amino acid) using Scansite software (http://scansite.mit.edu/), and two perfect consensus sites were found containing serine residues at 158, which lies in the N terminus, and at residue 442, which lies between PDZ domains 2 and 3. Upon analysis of the human, mouse, rat, Drosophila and Caenorhabditis elegans DLG1 sequences (Table 1), it was found that though these serines and the corresponding consensus sites are perfectly conserved among the mammals and vertebrates, they were not conserved in Drosophila and C. elegans. This suggests that these potential phosphorylation sites have roles in DLG1 function in more developed species, but that different pathways regulate Dlg1 in lower organisms.
|
To verify that these two potential sites are indeed phosphorylated by CDK1 and CDK2, we mutated Ser158 and Ser442 both separately and together, to alanines, to block phosphorylation on the residues. The mutants expressed as GST fusion proteins were then subjected to in vitro phosphorylation assays with purified CDK1 and CDK2. The results obtained are shown in Fig 3A,B. When either residue alone is mutated, DLG1 was still phosphorylated by both kinases with almost wild-type efficiency. Only when both sites were mutated was phosphorylation by CDK1 and CDK2 abolished. This suggests that both serines are equally recognised by the CDKs as being phospho-acceptor sites.
|
), further supporting the notion that DLG1 is a substrate for CDKs in vivo.
|
Phosphorylation on Ser158 and Ser442 enhances nuclear expression of DLG1
To investigate the role of the CDK phosphorylation events on DLG1 function, we first analysed the effects of mutating these residues upon the pattern of DLG1 expression. To do this, a series of HA-tagged mutants were generated: Ser158
Ala and Ser158Asp, Ser442Ala and Ser442Asp, Ser158Ser442AlaAla and Ser158Ser442AspAsp, where mutations to alanine block phosphorylation, and those to aspartic acid mimic phosphorylation. To verify that the different DLG1 mutants were expressed, HEK293 cells were transfected with the different expression plasmids, and after 24 hours, protein levels were ascertained by western blot analysis. The results obtained are shown in Fig. 5A. Interestingly, wild-type DLG1 migrated as two distinct forms on the gel, the slower of which is more heavily phosphorylated (Caruana and Bernstein, 2001; Massimi et al., 2006), whereas the double Ala mutant co-migrated with the faster migrating band, and the double Asp mutant with the slower migrating phosphorylated form of DLG1. In addition, the single point mutations at Ser158 had essentially a similar phenotype, demonstrating that the presence or absence of a single acidic residue at this position has a profound effect on the overall conformational structure of DLG1, and that a single acidic residue at position 158 is sufficient to account for the slower migrating form of DLG1. A similar pattern of migration was also obtained when the mutants were expressed in U2OS cells (data not shown).
|
We then proceeded to investigate the effects of the two double point mutations upon the pattern of DLG1 expression in vivo. U2OS cells were transfected with the different expression plasmids and DLG1 expression ascertained by immunofluorescence using anti-HA antibodies. The results obtained in Fig. 5B show the predominant patterns of expression that were observed. Wild-type DLG1 exhibited two distinct patterns of expression: a diffuse staining of the entire cell, and a staining that excluded the nucleus. However, the point mutant Ser158Ser442AlaAla showed a predominantly nuclear excluded pattern, whereas the Ser158Ser442AspAsp had a more diffuse pattern of staining. To accurately quantify this, 300 cells were counted for each assay and the expression scored as diffuse or nuclear exclusion (Fig. 5C), which confirmed the differential pattern of expression of the two mutant proteins.
To further demonstrate a direct link between CDK activity and the pattern of DLG1 localisation, we analysed the pattern of DLG1 expression in HaCaT cells in the presence and absence of the CDK inhibitor roscovitine (Fig. 5D). Treatment with roscovitine induced an overall decrease in the intensity of DLG1 staining and a more diffused cytoplasmic pattern of expression. However, there was no apparent change in the ability of DLG1 to localise to the midbody in cytokinesis, although we were unable to detect localisation to the mitotic spindle in the few dividing cells that could be detected. These results demonstrate that inhibition of CDK activity has a direct effect upon the pattern of DLG1 expression.
DLG1 protein stability and susceptibility to ubiquitylation is in part determined by its phosphorylation on Ser158 and Ser442
The above results demonstrate that phosphorylation of DLG1 on Ser158 and Ser442 can affect its cellular pattern of expression. We also noticed from Fig. 5A subtle differences in the levels of expression of the different mutant forms of DLG1 and, because phosphorylation of proteins has long been connected to their stability in the cell, we asked whether the phosphorylation events on these residues could affect DLG1 protein stability. Cells were transfected with the different expression plasmids, and after 24 hours, further protein synthesis was blocked by treatment with cycloheximide. The levels of DLG1 expression were then analysed over a period of 8 hours by western blotting (Fig. 6A). Strikingly, we found that the DLG1 double Ala mutant has a significantly reduced half-life compared with both wild-type DLG1 and the DLG1 double Asp mutant, with the single point mutants, not surprisingly, giving an intermediate phenotype (data not shown). This suggests that phosphorylation of the protein on these two residues increases its stability and affects the turnover of the protein. To investigate this further, we also performed an in vivo ubiquitylation assay. Cells were transfected with the HA-tagged DLG1 expression plasmids together with a Flag-tagged ubiquitin expression plasmid (Fig. 6B). The inputs for all three proteins were approximately equal; however, following immunoprecipitation of DLG1 and western blot detection for ubiquitin (Fig. 6C) we found that the wild type and the double Ala mutant show a high degree of ubiquitylation. By contrast, the double Asp mutant had only a very low level of ubiquitylation. These results suggest that the acidic status of the Ser158 and Ser442 residues can directly affect the levels to which DLG1 is ubiquitylated, which in turn affects the overall stability of the protein.
|
|
Finally, we wanted to confirm that the Ser158 phosphorylation event that we detected on DLG1 is indeed a result of CDK activity. To do this, asynchronously growing HaCaT cells were grown in the absence or presence of roscovitine and DLG1 levels analysed using the phospho-specific antibody directed against Ser158-P. The results obtained are shown in Fig. 7D, where it can be seen that the ability of the anti-Ser158-P antibody to detect DLG1 was completely lost following treatment with roscovitine. Taken together these results demonstrate that DLG1 is a substrate for CDKs during different phases of the cell cycle, the consequences of which have profound implications for DLG1 localisation and stability.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopSummaryIntroductionResultsDiscussionMaterials and MethodsReferences |
|---|
The role of Dlg1 has been established as a regulator of cell polarity, adhesion and junction stability (Abbott and Natzle, 1992; Woods et al., 1996; Humbert et al., 2003), as a controller of development (Caruana and Bernstein, 2001; Iizuko-kago et al., 2007) and it has also been shown to have a strong involvement in normalising synapse regulation at the neuromuscular junction (Lahey et al., 1994; Budnik et al., 1996; Zhang et al., 2007). However, the actual role of mammalian DLG1 in the control of cell growth and cell polarity has been a matter of much speculation. This is complicated by the fact that the molecular mechanisms regulating DLG1 function, stability and localisation are still largely unknown. It has certainly been proposed to have a cell cycle regulatory function (Nguyen et al., 2003) through its association with the APC tumour suppressor (Ishidate et al., 2000) and the mitotic PDZ-binding kinase (Gaudet et al., 2000). Recent studies have also suggested that different isoforms under certain circumstances might also have different effects upon cell proliferation through activation of the PI3K pathway (Frese et al., 2003; Frese et al., 2006). This might in fact be linked to reported differences in the cellular localisation of different DLG1 isoforms (McLaughlin et al., 2002; Roberts et al., 2007). It now seems likely that many of these diverse activities and patterns of expression may actually be connected through common pathways of post-translational modification of DLG1. The initial observations supporting this came from studies which showed that DLG1 was phosphorylated via the MAPK pathway following osmotic shock, resulting in altered patterns of protein localisation (Sabio et al., 2005; Massimi et al., 2006). These studies were done under stress conditions, and we now show that similar alterations in the pattern of DLG1 expression are obtained during a normal cell cycle and, most importantly, that this is directly controlled by both CDK1 and CDK2 by phosphorylating DLG1 on two sites, Ser158 and Ser442.
We show that DLG1 is a substrate for CDK1 and CDK2 both in vitro and in vivo. This was done first using purified components in vitro, and mutational analysis allowed us to identify that Ser158 and Ser442 were both phospho-acceptor sites for CDK1 and CDK2. The data supporting CDK regulation of DLG1 in vivo comes from several experiments. We observe a strong co-immunoprecipitation between endogenous DLG1 and CDK2, as well as between DLG1 and cyclin B, demonstrating that DLG1 can at least be found in the complexes that would be expected to have CDK activity. We also observed a clear difference in the pattern of DLG1 migration in SDS-PAGE, when cells were exposed to the CDK inhibitor, roscovitine, in both G2-M as well as in asynchronously growing cells, suggesting that CDKs do in fact phosphorylate endogenous DLG1. We cannot formally exclude the fact that CDK5 might not be involved, although this seems unlikely because it is predominantly expressed in neural cells. Finally, using phospho-specific antibodies directed against one of these sites, we show a clear cell-cycle-dependent phosphorylation of DLG1 on Ser158 and Ser442, with the reactivity of the antibody against Ser158 being lost after treatment with roscovitine. Interestingly, Ser158 appears to be phosphorylated during late G1 and during M, whereas Ser442 is predominantly phosphorylated during M phase, suggesting that a different hierarchy of phospho-acceptor site recognition on DLG1 might exist during different phases of the cell cycle.
These phosphorylation events appear to have a number of important consequences. One of them seems to be a major structural alteration. DLG1 normally migrates as two major species and interestingly, the Ser158Asp mutation alone is sufficient to generate the slower migrating form of the protein, suggesting that the presence of an acidic residue at this position induces a major structural change in DLG1. Interestingly, phosphorylation at these sites also appears to regulate the level to which DLG1 is ubiquitylated. Certainly, the lack of acidic residues at Ser158 and Ser442 greatly shortens the half-life of the protein, whereas by contrast, the presence of two acidic residues significantly extends the half-life and decreases the level of ubiquitylation. Obviously, these assays were performed with ectopically expressed mutants and it will now be interesting to determine whether different species of DLG1 have different levels of stability during different phases of the cell cycle.
It is also clear that phosphorylation at Ser158 and Ser442 probably alters the pattern of DLG1 expression, with the double Ala mutant exhibiting a pattern of nuclear exclusion. It is intriguing to note that previous studies also identified Ser158 and Ser442 as being sites of phosphorylation by p38
following exposure of cells to osmotic stress (Sabio et al., 2005), although our studies show that these sites are phosphorylated during the course of a normal cell cycle. As a result of these phosphorylation events following osmotic shock, DLG1 lost its ability to bind GKAP and the cytoskeleton. It is tempting to speculate that phosphorylation of DLG1 during a normal cell cycle by the CDKs at these two sites may also have a similar function and thereby correctly regulate the localisation of DLG1 during different phases of the cell cycle. Studies are now in progress to identify the cellular binding partners of DLG1 whose interactions might be modified as a consequence of these phosphorylation events, with GKAP as the obvious candidate (Wu et al., 2000). It is also significant to note that Ser442 lies between the PDZ2 and PDZ3 domains of the protein, which is an area involved in binding several proteins involved in cell propagation, including tumour suppressors such as the APC (Matsumine et al., 1996), as well as oncoproteins such HPV E6, 9ORF1 and HTLV Tax1 (Kiyono et al., 1997; Mantovani and Banks, 2001; Latorre et al., 2005) and it will be interesting to determine whether there are any cell cycle regulatory aspects to these interactions.
These results provide the first direct evidence of a link between DLG1 and the regulation of the cell cycle through an interaction with the key cell cycle regulators, CDK1 and CDK2, and further highlight the importance of phosphorylation as a major post-translational modification in the life of the protein.
|
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
TopSummaryIntroductionResultsDiscussionMaterials and MethodsReferences |
|---|
Synchronisation and FACS analysis
To synchronise HaCaT cells, aphidicolin (Sigma) was added at a concentration of 4 µg/ml to asynchronous growing cells for 24 hours. The aphidicolin-containing medium was then removed and the cell culture was washed with 10 ml PBS. The PBS was then replaced with complete medium. To achieve M-phase synchronisation, cells were treated with 300 nM nocodazole for 18 hours. Cells were harvested at different times and DNA content was assessed by propidium iodide staining and FACS analysis as described previously (Banks et al., 1990).
Plasmids, primers and site-directed mutagenesis
The wild type HA-tagged DLG1 expression plasmid has been described previously (Gardiol et al., 2002). The point mutations to Ser158 and Ser442 were constructed using PCR-driven site-directed mutagenesis (GeneTailor, Invitrogen). The primers for mutating Ser158 are as follows: to Ala, forward primer, 5'-GTCTCTCACTCTCATATCGCACCCATAAAG-3'; and to Asp, forward primer, 5'-GTCTCTCACTCTCATATCGACCCCATAAAG-3', reverse primer, 5'-GATATGAGAGTGAGAGACAAACCCGTGGAC-3'. The primers for mutating Ser442 are as follows: to Ala, forward primer, 5'-TTGGGCCAGACTCCAGCGGCACCAGCCAGA-3'; to Asp, forward primer, 5'-TTGGGCCAGACTCCAGCGGACCCAGCCAGA-3', reverse primer, 5'-CGCTGGAGTCTGGCCCAAGTATGAAGACGG-3'. The mutations were confirmed by sequencing. The sequences were also cloned into the PGEX 2T plasmid to be expressed as Glutathione S-transferase fusion proteins, by partial BamHI-EcoRI digestion of the original PCDNA3 plasmid.
Immunoprecipitation
Total cellular extracts were prepared by lysing cells from 10 cm dishes, previously washed in PBS and trypsinised, in E1A buffer [25 mM HEPES pH 7.0, 0.1% NP-40, 150 mM NaCl, protease inhibitor cocktail I (Calbiochem)]. After incubation on ice for 20 minutes, lysates were cleared by centrifugation at 21,000 g for 10 minutes. SDS loading buffer was then added and the extracts were analysed by SDS-PAGE and western blot assays. For coimmunoprecipitations, endogenous protein was immunoprecipitated from HEK293 cells extracted with E1A buffer. The soluble fraction was incubated with anti-CDK2 polyclonal antibody (Santa Cruz) or anti-cyclin B monoclonal antibody (Calbiochem) for 3-4 hours on a rotating wheel at 4°C. Protein-A-Sepharose beads (GE Healthcare) were then added to the lysate and incubated for an additional 40 minutes at 4°C. The lysates were centrifuged and washed three times with E1A buffer and precipitated proteins were analysed by western blotting. In all cases, endogenous DLG1 was detected using anti-DLG monoclonal antibody (2D11, Santa Cruz, Heidelberg, Germany) and HA-tagged DLG was detected using anti-HA monoclonal antibody (Roche, Monza, Italy). Tubulin was detected using anti-tubulin monoclonal antibody (Sigma) and anti-β-galactosidase antibody (Promega) was used to monitor transfection efficiency. Western blots were developed using the GE Healthcare ECL System according to the manufacturer's instructions.
GST fusion proteins and in vitro kinase assays
GST fusion proteins were induced and purified as described previously (Thomas et al., 1997) and their purity was tested by SDS-PAGE and Coomassie blue staining. Equal amounts of purified GST proteins were incubated with commercially purified CDK1 and CDK2 kinases (New England Biolabs) for 20 minutes at 30°C in phosphorylation buffer (20 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 20 mM MgCl2, 0.3 mM aprotinin, 1 mM pepstatin) containing 56 nM [32P]ATP (Amersham) and 10 mM ATP. After being extensively washed, the phosphorylated proteins were detected by SDS-PAGE and autoradiography.
Immunofluorescence and microscopy
Cells were fixed with 3.7% paraformaldehyde in PBS and permeabilised with 0.1% Triton X-100 in PBS. Primary antibodies were incubated for 1.5 hours at 37°C, followed by extensive washing in PBS and incubation for 30 minutes at 37°C with secondary anti-rabbit or anti-mouse antibody conjugated with fluorescein or rhodamine (Molecular Probes). For visualisation of DNA, cells were stained with Hoechst 33258 stain (Sigma). Samples were then washed several times with water and mounted with Vectashield mounting medium (Vector Laboratories) on glass slides. Slides were analysed with either a Leica DMLB fluorescence microscope equipped with a Leica photo camera (A01M871016) or a Zeiss LSM 510 confocal microscope with two lasers giving excitation lines at 480 and 510 nm. The data were collected with a x100 or a x63 objective oil-immersion lens.
Ubiquitylation assays
HEK293 cells were transfected with 2 µg HA-DLG1 or mutant plasmids, and 0.5 µg PCMV-Flag-Ubiquitin. 24 hours post transfection, the cells were treated with proteasome inhibitors CBZ (MG132, 50 µM, Sigma) and LLnL (50 µM, Sigma) for 3 hours, after which E1A extraction was performed and the soluble fraction was incubated with anti-HA agarose beads (Sigma) to pull down DLG1 for 1-2 hours on a rotating wheel at 4°C. The agarose beads were then extensively washed and the precipitated proteins were analysed by western blot using the Flag antibody (M2, Sigma) to detect ubiquitin.
Half-life experiments
HEK293 cells were transfected using calcium phosphate precipitation with 2 µg wild type HA-DLG1 or the mutants, along with 0.1 µg of the β-gal plasmid as a transfection control. 24 hours after transfection, cells were treated for different time points as indicated with cycloheximide (50 µg/ml in DMSO) to block protein synthesis. Total cellular extracts were then analysed by western blot and the intensity of the bands on the X-ray film was measured using Adobe Photoshop.
Phosphospecific antibodies
Phospho-specific antibodies were designed against Ser158 and Ser 442 on DLG1 using the peptide sequences SHSHI(S)PIKPTE (for Ser158) and LGQTPA(S)PARYSP (for Ser442), and produced in rabbits by Biosense for Eurogentec, Milano, Italy. They were used at a dilution of 1:1000 in western blots. Appropriate secondary antibodies conjugated to HRP were purchased from DAKO and used for western blotting at a dilution of 1:2000.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
|
TopSummaryIntroductionResultsDiscussionMaterials and MethodsReferences |
|---|
Abbott, L. A. and Natzle, J. E. (1992). Epithelial polarity and cell separation in the neoplastic l (1) dlg-1 mutant of Drosophila. Mech Dev. 37, 43-56.
Banks, L. M., Barnett, S. C. and Crook, T. (1990). HPV-16 E7 functions at the G1 to S phase transition in the cell cycle. Oncogene 5, 833-837.[Medline]
Bilder, D., Li, M. and Perrimon, N. (2000). Cooperative regulation of cell polarity and growth by Drosophila tumor suppressors. Science 289, 113-116.
Bregman, D. B., Pestell, R. G. and Kidd, V. J. (2000). Cell cycle regulation and RNA polymerase II. Front Biosci. 5, D244-D257.[Medline]
Bryant, P. J. and Schmidt, O. (1990). The genetic control of cell proliferation in Drosophila imaginal discs. J. Cell Sci. Suppl. 13, 169-189.[Medline]
Budnik, V., Koh, Y. H., Guan, B., Hartmann, B., Hough, C., Woods, D. and Gorczyca, M. (1996). Regulation of synapse structure and function by the Drosophila tumor suppressor gene dlg. Neuron 17, 627-640.[CrossRef][Medline]
Caruana, G. (2002). Genetic studies define MAGUK proteins as regulators of epithelial cell polarity. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 46, 511-518.[Medline]
Caruana, G. and Bernstein, A. (2001). Craniofacial dysmorphogenesis including cleft palate in mice with an insertional mutation in the discs large gene. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21, 1475-x3.
Cavatorta, A. L., Fumero, G., Chouhy, D., Aguirre, R., Nocito, A. L., Giri, A. A., Banks, L. and Gardiol, D. (2004). Differential expression of the human homologue of Drosophila discs large oncosuppressor in histologic samples from human Papillomavirus-associated lesions as a marker for progression to malignancy. Int. J. Cancer 111, 373-380.[CrossRef][Medline]
Craven, S. E. and Bredt, D. S. (1998). PDZ proteins organize synaptic signaling pathways. Cell 93, 495-498.[CrossRef][Medline]
Etienne-Manneville, S., Manneville, J. B., Nicholls, S., Ferenczi, M. A. and Hall, A. (2005). Cdc42 and Par6-PKCzeta regulate the spatially localized association of Dlg1 and APC to control cell polarization. J. Cell Biol. 170, 895-901.
Frese, K. K., Lee, S. S., Thomas, D. L., Latorre, I. J., Weiss, R. S., Glaunsinger, B. A. and Javier, R. T. (2003). Selective PDZ protein-dependent stimulation of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase by the adenovirus E4-ORF1 oncoprotein. Oncogene 22, 710-721.[CrossRef][Medline]
Frese, K. K., Latorre, I. J., Chung, S. H., Caruana, G., Bernstein, A., Jones, S. N., Donehower, L. A., Justice, M. J., Garner, C. C. and Javier, R. T. (2006). Oncogenic function for the Dlg1 mammalian homolog of the Drosophila discs-large tumor suppressor. EMBO J. 25, 1406-1417.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gardiol, D., Kuhne, C., Glaunsinger, B., Lee, S. S., Javier, R. and Banks, L. (1999). Oncogenic human papillomavirus E6 proteins target the discs large tumour suppressor for proteasome-mediated degradation. Oncogene 18, 5487-5496.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gardiol, D., Galizzi, S. and Banks, L. (2002). Mutational analysis of the discs large tumour suppressor identifies domains responsible for human papillomavirus type 18 E6-mediated degradation. J. Gen. Virol. 83, 283-289.
Gardiol, D., Zacchi, A., Petrera, F., Stanta, G. and Banks, L. (2006). Human discs large and scrib are localized at the same regions in colon mucosa and changes in their expression patterns are correlated with loss of tissue architecture during malignant progression. Int. J. Cancer 119, 1285-1290.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gaudet, S., Branton, D. and Lue, R. A. (2000). Characterization of PDZ-binding kinase, a mitotic kinase. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 5167-5172.
Geisen, C. and Moroy, T. (2002). The oncogenic activity of cyclin E is not confined to Cdk2 activation alone but relies on several other, distinct functions of the protein. J. Biol. Chem. 277, 39909-39918.
González-Mariscal, L., Betanzos, A. and Avila-Flores, A. (2000). MAGUK proteins: structure and role in the tight junction. Semin. Cell. Dev. Biol. 11, 315-324.[CrossRef][Medline]
Goode, S. and Perrimon, N. (1997). Inhibition of patterned cell shape change and cell invasion by Discs large during Drosophila oogenesis. Genes Dev. 11, 2532-2544.
Hanada, T., Lin, L., Chandy, K. G., Oh, S. S. and Chishti, A. H. (1997). Human homologue of the Drosophila discs large tumour suppressor binds to p56lck tyrosine kinase and Shaker type Kv1.3 potassium channel in T lymphocytes. J. Biol. Chem. 272, 26899-26904.
Hough, C. D., Woods, D. F., Park, S. and Bryant, P. J. (1997). Organizing a functional junctional complex requires specific domains of the Drosophila MAGUK Discs large. Genes Dev. 11, 3242-3253.
Humbert, P., Russell, S. and Richardson, H. (2003). Dlg, Scribble and Lgl in cell polarity, cell proliferation and cancer. BioEssays 25, 542-553.[CrossRef][Medline]
Iizuka-Kogo, A., Ishidao, T., Akiyama, T. and Senda, T. (2007). Abnormal development of urogenital organs in Dlgh1-deficient mice. Development 134, 1799-1807.
Ishidate, T., Matsumine, A., Toyoshima, K. and Akiyama, T. (2000). The APC-hDlg complex negatively regulates cell cycle progression from the G0/G1 to S phase. Oncogene 19, 365-372.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kim, S. K. (1997). Polarized signaling: basolateral receptor localization in epithelial cells by PDZ-containing proteins. Curr. Opin. Cell. Biol. 9, 853-859.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kiyono, T., Hiraiwa, A., Fujita, M., Hayashi, Y., Akiyama, T. and Ishibashi, M. (1997). Binding of high-risk human papillomavirus E6 oncoproteins to the human homologue of the Drosophila discs large tumour suppressor protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 11612-11616.
Koh, Y. H., Popova, E., Thomas, U., Griffith, L. C. and Budnik, V. (1999). Regulation of DLG localization at synapses by CaMKII-dependent phosphorylation. Cell 98, 353-363.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lahey, T., Gorczyca, M., Jia, X. X. and Budnik, V. (1994). The Drosophila tumor suppressor gene dlg is required for normal synaptic bouton structure. Neuron 13, 823-835.[CrossRef][Medline]
Latorre, I. J., Roh, M. H., Frese, K. K., Weiss, R. S., Margolis, B. and Javier, R. T. (2005). Viral oncoprotein-induced mislocalization of select PDZ proteins disrupts tight junctions and causes polarity defects in epithelial cells. J. Cell Sci. 118, 4283-4293.
Lee, S. S., Weiss, R. S. and Javier, R. T. (1997). Binding of human virus oncoproteins to hDlg/SAP97, a mammalian homolog of the Drosophila discs large tumor suppressor protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 6670-6675.
Mantovani, F. and Banks, L. (2001). The human papillomavirus E6 protein and its contribution to malignant progression. Oncogene 20, 7874-7887.[CrossRef][Medline]
Mantovani, F. and Banks, L. (2003). Regulation of the discs large tumor suppressor by a phosphorylation-dependent interaction with the beta-TrCP ubiquitin ligase receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 42477-42486.
Massimi, P., Gardiol, D., Roberts, S. and Banks, L. (2003). Redistribution of the discs large tumor suppressor protein during mitosis. Exp. Cell Res. 290, 265-274.[CrossRef][Medline]
Massimi, P., Gammoh, N., Thomas, M. and Banks, L. (2004). HPV E6 specifically targets different cellular pools of its PDZ domain-containing tumour suppressor substrates for proteasome-mediated degradation. Oncogene 23, 8033-8039.[CrossRef][Medline]
Massimi, P., Narayan, N., Cuenda, A. and Banks, L. (2006). Phosphorylation of the discs large tumour suppressor protein controls its membrane localisation and enhances its susceptibility to HPVE6-induced degradation. Oncogene 25, 4276-4285.[CrossRef][Medline]
Massimi, P., Narayan, N., Thomas, M., Gammoh, N., Strand, S., Strand, D. and Banks, L. (2008). Regulation of the hDlg/hScrib/Hugl-1 tumour suppressor complex. Exp. Cell Res. 314, 3306-3317.[CrossRef][Medline]
Matsumine, A., Ogai, A., Senda, T., Okumura, N., Satoh, K., Baeg, G. H., Kawahara, T., Kobayashi, S., Okada, M., Toyoshima, K. et al. (1996). Binding of APC to the human homolog of the Drosophila discs large tumor suppressor protein. Science 272, 1020-1023.[Abstract]
McLaughlin, M., Hale, R., Ellston, D., Gaudet, S., Lue, R. A. and Viel, A. (2002). The distribution and function of alternatively spliced insertions in hDlg. J. Biol. Chem. 277, 6406-6412.
Nguyen, M. M., Nguyen, M. L., Caruana, G., Bernstein, A., Lambert, P. F. and Griep, A. E. (2003). Requirement of PDZ-containing proteins for cell cycle regulation and differentiation in the mouse lens epithelium. Mol. Cell. Biol. 23, 8970-8981.
Pim, D., Thomas, M., Javier, R., Gardiol, D. and Banks, L. (2000). HPV E6 targeted degradation of the discs large protein: evidence for the involvement of a novel ubiquitin ligase. Oncogene 19, 719-725.[CrossRef][Medline]
Roberts, S., Calautti, E., Vanderweil, S., Nguyen, H. O., Foley, A., Baden, H. P. and Viel, A. (2007). Changes in localization of human discs large (hDlg) during keratinocyte differentiation are associated with expression of alternatively spliced hDlg variants. Exp. Cell. Res. 313, 2521-2530.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sabio, G., Arthur, J. S., Kuma, Y., Peggie, M., Carr, J., Murray-Tait, V., Centeno, F., Goedert, M., Morrice, N. A. and Cuenda, A. (2005). P38gamma regulates the localization of SAP97 in the cytoskeleton by modulating its interaction with GKAP. EMBO J. 24, 1134-1145.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sherr, C. J. and McCormick, F. (2002). The RB and p53 pathways in cancer. Cancer Cell 2, 103-112.[CrossRef][Medline]
Suzuki, T., Ohsugi, Y., Uchida-Toita, M., Akiyama, T. and Yoshida, M. (1999). Tax oncoprotein of HTLV-1 binds to the human homologue of Drosophila discs large tumor suppressor protein, hDlg, and perturbs its function in cell growth control. Oncogene 18, 5967-5972.[CrossRef][Medline]
Thomas, U., Phannavong, B., Müller, B., Garner, C. C. and Gundelfinger, E. D. (1997). Functional expression of rat synapse-associated proteins SAP97 and SAP102 in Drosophila dlg-1 mutants: effects on tumor suppression and synaptic bouton structure. Mech. Dev. 62, 161-174.[CrossRef][Medline]
Woods, D. F. and Bryant, P. J. (1991). The discs-large tumor suppressor gene of Drosophila encodes a guanylate kinase homolog localized at septate junctions. Cell 66, 451-464.[CrossRef][Medline]
Woods, D. F. and Bryant P. J. (1993). Apical junctions and cell signalling in epithelia. J. Cell. Sci. Suppl. 17, 171-781.[Medline]
Woods, D. F., Hough, C., Peel, D., Callaini, G. and Bryant, P. J. (1996). Dlg protein is required for junction structure, cell polarity, and proliferation control in Drosophila epithelia. J. Cell Biol. 134, 1469-1482.
Wu, H., Reissner, C., Kuhlendahl, S., Coblentz, B., Reuver, S., Kindler, S., Gundelfinger, E. D., amd Garner, C. C. (2000). Intramolecular interactions regulate SAP97 binding to GKAP. EMBO J. 19, 5740-5751.[CrossRef][Medline]
Zhang, Y., Guo, H., Kwan, H., Wang, J. W., Kosek, J. and Lu, B. (2007). PAR-1 kinase phosphorylates Dlg and regulates its postsynaptic targeting at the Drosophila neuromuscular junction. Neuron 53, 201-215.[CrossRef][Medline]
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
