QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online 5 January 2010
doi: 10.1242/jcs.052167

This Article Summary Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Supplementary Material All Versions of this Article: jcs.052167v1 123/3/401    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Struckhoff, A. P. Articles by Worthylake, R. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Struckhoff, A. P. Articles by Worthylake, R. A. Pubmed/NCBI databases Gene GEO Profiles HomoloGene UniGene Compound via MeSH Substance via MeSH Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Dynamic regulation of ROCK in tumor cells controls CXCR4-driven adhesion events

¹ Departments of Oral Biology and Pharmacology, LSU Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA
² Department of Medicine, Tulane University Medical Center, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA

^* Author for correspondence (bworth{at}lsuhsc.edu)

Accepted 2 November 2009

	Summary

Top Summary Introduction Results Discussion Materials and Methods References

 
CXCR4 is a chemokine receptor often found aberrantly expressed on metastatic tumor cells. To investigate CXCR4 signaling in tumor cell adhesion, we stably overexpressed CXCR4 in MCF7 breast tumor cells. Cell attachment assays demonstrate that stimulation of the receptor with its ligand, CXCL12, promotes adhesion of MCF7-CXCR4 cells to both extracellular matrix and endothelial ligands. To more closely mimic the conditions experienced by a circulating tumor cell, we performed the attachment assays under shear stress conditions. We found that CXCL12-induced tumor cell attachment is much more pronounced under flow. ROCK is a serine/threonine kinase associated with adhesion and metastasis, which is regulated by CXCR4 signaling. Thus, we investigated the contribution of ROCK activity during CXC12-induced adhesion events. Our results demonstrate a biphasic regulation of ROCK in response to adhesion. During the initial attachment, inhibition of ROCK activity is required. Subsequently, re-activation of ROCK activity is required for maturation of adhesion complexes and enhanced tumor cell migration. Interestingly, CXCL12 partially reduces the level of ROCK activity generated by attachment, which supports a model in which stimulation with CXCL12 regulates tumor cell adhesion events by providing an optimal level of ROCK activity for effective migration.

Key words: CXCL12, CXCR4, ROCK, Flow, Metastasis, Tumor recruitment

	Introduction

Top Summary Introduction Results Discussion Materials and Methods References

 
Metastasis is the result of a complex set of events that culminate in tumor cell colonization of distal tissues, resulting in deadly consequences. During the metastatic process, tumor cells acquire the ability to survive and proliferate in a new tissue environment (Steeg, 2006). To access these new tissues, metastatic cells display migratory capacities not present in their normal cell counterparts (Friedl and Wolf, 2003; Wang et al., 2005). One of these migratory behaviors is the ability to be trafficked into secondary organs. Although the mechanisms that govern organ-selectivity of metastasis are multi-faceted, one important mechanism is the recruitment of tumor cells by chemokines (Ben-Baruch, 2008; Dittmar et al., 2008; Gassmann and Haier, 2008). Chemokines are potent regulators of cellular trafficking within the body, particularly in the case of directing hematopoietic cell migration. The chemokine receptor CXCR4 is a potent motomorphogen and is essential not only for hematopoiesis, but also for regeneration of multiple solid tissues (Kucia et al., 2005). The expression of CXCR4 is normally restricted to hematopoietic cells and committed stem cells; however, aberrant expression of this chemokine receptor has been shown to be correlated with tumor metastasis (Balkwill, 2004; Zlotnik, 2006). Significantly, blocking CXCR4 signaling inhibits breast tumor cell metastasis in an intravenous model system (Muller et al., 2001). It is thought that metastatic tumor cells can hijack the CXCR4 trafficking signals needed for normal tissue reorganizing activities, thereby gaining entry to distal organs as potential sites for colonization.

Rho GTPase signals are responsible for many cell migration activities (Heasman and Ridley, 2008; Titus et al., 2005; Wennerberg and Der, 2004). The Ser/Thr kinases, ROCKI and ROCKII (also known as ROCK-1 and ROCK-2), are RhoA effectors that have been associated with metastasis in animal models (Hakuma et al., 2005; Itoh et al., 1999; Lin et al., 2007; Nakajima et al., 2003a; Nakajima et al., 2003b; Narumiya et al., 2009; Ogawa et al., 2007; Takamura et al., 2001; Wong et al., 2009; Xue et al., 2007; Ying et al., 2006). Several lines of investigation implicate ROCKs in the invasive behavior of metastatic tumor cells (Cardone et al., 2005; Itoh et al., 1999; Joshi et al., 2008; Kamai et al., 2003; Kitzing et al., 2007; Li et al., 2006; Wilkinson et al., 2005). Recent studies have demonstrated that RhoA and ROCK promote invasion of matrix in response to CXCL12 (Amine et al., 2009; Azab et al., 2009; Molina-Ortiz et al., 2009). ROCKs also play a role in the regulation of invasive pseudopodia and/or invadopodia in metastatic tumor cells. ROCK activity is required for organization of the matrix surrounding advancing tumor cells to promote invasion in three dimensions (Provenzano et al., 2008) and ROCKs have been shown to be required for an ‘amoeboid’ mode of motility that is used by many metastatic cells to invade through three-dimensional matrix (Rosel et al., 2008; Sahai and Marshall, 2003; Torka et al., 2006; Wyckoff et al., 2006). Thus, one way that ROCKs are thought to contribute to metastasis is by stimulating invasiveness; either by the promoting invasive protrusions, or remodeling the matrix.

In addition to a role in tumor invasiveness, ROCKs are also known to regulate cell migration in response to extracellular cues, including those mediated by chemokines (Moyer et al., 2007; Samaniego et al., 2007; Tan et al., 2006; Vicente-Manzanares et al., 2002). Regulation of integrin adhesion is an important mechanism by which chemokines regulate cellular recruitment. CXCL12, the ligand for CXCR4, is known as a ‘capture’ chemokine because of its ability to induce arrest of circulating hematopoietic cells by the vascular endothelium (Alon and Ley, 2008; Laudanna and Alon, 2006; Ley, 2003). Although tumor cell recruitment is probably more complex than leukocyte recruitment and can involve interactions with platelets and other hematopoietic cells (Borsig, 2008; de Visser et al., 2006; Witz, 2008), tumor cell recruitment shares several features of leukocyte recruitment (Balkwill, 2004; Ben-Baruch, 2008; Dittmar et al., 2008; Miles et al., 2008). Notably, tumor cell trafficking can be directed by chemokines, and direct adhesive interactions between tumor cells and the endothelial ligands including selectins, intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) and vascular cell adhesion molecule (1VCAM-1) have been shown to contribute to tumor cell arrest (Gassmann and Haier, 2008; Glinsky et al., 2003; Jones et al., 2007; Kobayashi et al., 2007; Zetter, 1993).

Subsequent to arrest, chemokines are further thought to regulate chemotaxis by spatially coordinating integrin adhesions, such that adhesion occurs at the front and de-adhesion occurs at the back end of the migrating cell (Imhof and Aurrand-Lions, 2004; Kinashi, 2007; Worthylake and Burridge, 2001). Integrins cluster together with many associated proteins in the cytoplasm to form adhesion complexes that contain both structural and signaling molecules that regulate adhesion behavior. The highly dynamic nature of these adhesion complexes controls the formation of nascent adhesions and their maturation to more stable integrin adhesions during initial attachment and subsequent cell migration. Thus, CXCR4 has the potential to regulate recruitment through two distinct adhesion mechanisms: initial arrest of circulating tumor cells, and subsequent reorganization of the adhesion complexes to support chemotaxis.

ROCKs are important regulators of integrin adhesions, promoting the development of large integrin adhesion complexes (Riento and Ridley, 2003). Several chemokines, including CXCL12, have been shown to regulate the activity of RhoA and ROCKs; however, their specific effect on ROCK activity is context dependent. In some systems, CXCL12 induces ROCK activity whereas in others the chemokine inhibits ROCK activity (Amine et al., 2009; Arakawa et al., 2003; Moyer et al., 2007; Tan et al., 2006; Vicente-Manzanares et al., 2002). These discrepancies can probably be explained by the use of different cell types, experimental conditions, and the time course examined. CXCL12 is known to induce rapid changes in cell adhesion, cell shape and cell migratory capacities, which correspond to underlying changes in signaling pathways (Kucia et al., 2004). During a dynamic process such as cell migration, it is very likely that the effect of CXCL12 on ROCK activity varies over time and might be further influenced by the particular cellular context. Therefore, CXCL12 regulation of ROCK activity is a potential means of controlling tumor cell adhesive events. However, studies to date have not specifically investigated the role of ROCK activity in CXCL12-induced adhesive events during the early phases of cellular attachment, which is thought to be an important first step in tumor cell recruitment.

To investigate the role of ROCK in CXCR4-driven tumor cell adhesion during recruitment, we overexpressed CXCR4 in MCF7 breast tumor cells and analyzed their behavior in response to adhesion stimulated by CXCL12. To more closely mimic the conditions of a circulating tumor cell, we specifically designed our experiments to examine the transition from suspension to adhesion. Our results show that CXCL12 promotes adhesion in two ways. First, it increases initial cellular attachment to both extracellular matrix and endothelial adhesion molecules. Second, it promotes the maturation of integrin adhesion complexes following attachment. Analysis of the role of ROCK activity in these processes reveals an unexpected biphasic role for ROCK activity during adhesion. Initially, inhibition of ROCK activity is required to allow cellular attachment. Following attachment, re-activation of ROCK is required for maturation of adhesion complexes and subsequent migration. Interestingly, although CXCL12-induced adhesion maturation and migration require ROCK activity, CXCL12 reduces the level of ROCK re-activation. This suggests a model in which CXCL12 promotes adhesion maturation and migration by providing an optimal level of ROCK activity. Finally, we have examined tumor cell attachment under physiological flow conditions, and find that constitutively active ROCK blocks tumor cell attachment to an endothelial monolayer, highlighting the importance of the transient decrease in ROCK activity during tumor cell adhesion.

	Results

Top Summary Introduction Results Discussion Materials and Methods References

 
CXCR4 stimulation increases MCF7 cell attachment
Chemokines, such as CXCL12, are known to increase leukocyte arrest on the endothelium by stimulating integrin adhesion. In order to identify the role of the CXCR4-CXCL12 axis in tumor cell adhesion, we used cell attachment assays to evaluate whether CXCR4 activation stimulated MCF7 breast cancer cell adhesion. We expressed CXCR4 in MCF7 cells (MCF7-CXCR4) to a level equivalent to metastatic MDA-MB 361 cells (supplementary material Fig. S1). MCF7-CXCR4 cells labeled with CellTracker^TM Green were put into suspension, incubated for 5 minutes with or without 10 nM CXCL12, and then plated onto 96-well plates coated with a panel of adhesion molecules for 20 minutes. We limited the time of attachment to 20 minutes to restrict our analysis to early adhesion events as a model for tumor cell attachment. We found that CXCL12 increased the attachment of MCF7-CXCR4 cells to collagen 1 (Fig. 1A). For comparison, the attachment of MCF7-vector-control cells is also shown. We found that overexpression of CXCR4 in MCF7 cells promotes adhesion to collagen 1 even in the absence of CXCL12 stimulation. The binding to collagen 1 was very efficient and was subsequently used to normalize the attachment data and serve as a reference point for comparison between different experiments. We next analyzed binding to laminin and several endothelial cell ligands expected to be important for tumor cell adhesion and found that CXCL12 stimulated adhesion to E-selectin, ICAM-1 and VCAM-1 (between 38% and 60% of plated cells attached depending on the ligand; Fig. 1B). This is an important result because it demonstrates that stimulation of CXCR4 can enhance adhesion to endothelial ligands which might be important for tumor cell migration during metastasis.

Because ROCK is known as a potent promoter of adhesion complexes, we next wanted to determine whether basal and CXCL12-induced early adhesion events were dependent on ROCK activity. We pretreated MCF7-CXCR4 cells with Y-27632, an inhibitor of ROCKI and II. (Note that we are not distinguishing between the two ROCK isoforms because the reagents used do not discriminate between them.) We found that inhibition of ROCK with Y-27632 increased MCF7-CXCR4 cell attachment to collagen 1 (30%) and ICAM-1 (45%). In addition, we found that the ROCK inhibitor increased cell attachment even over the levels observed with CXCL12 stimulation (Fig. 1C). Inhibition of ROCK similarly increased attachment to laminin (32%), VCAM (35%) and E-selectin (50%); supplementary material Fig. S2). Because ROCK activity is associated with the formation of robust integrin adhesions, the finding that ROCK activity was not only dispensable, but actually promoted tumor cell attachment was unexpected.

View larger version (26K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Effect of CXCL12 and ROCK signaling on tumor cell attachment. The relative amount of cells that attached in 20 minutes was determined (see Materials and Methods) and the data plotted (values are from triplicate wells in three to seven separate experiments). (A) Attachment to collagen 1 was measured in the presence or absence of 10 nM CXCL12, and was plotted as arbitrary fluorescence units. Subsequently, the attachment data was normalized to collagen 1 control, which was included in each experiment as a point of reference. (B) Attachment to laminin and endothelial adhesion molecules. (C) Attachment to collagen 1 or ICAM-1 when ROCK activity was inhibited with Y-27632. CXCL12 promoted adhesion to all surfaces tested, but inhibition of ROCK did not block, and instead enhanced attachment (*P<0.05 and **P<0.01, as determined by Student's t-test).

In control cells, GFP-paxillin was clearly incorporated into adhesion complexes, visible by TIRF microscopy. By 20 minutes, cells were well spread and the adhesion complexes were distinct and visible, primarily at the cell periphery with a few located on the interior of the cell (Fig. 2A). We also observed that in addition to effects on adhesion complexes, CXCL12 stimulation led to increased cell protrusions and a less symmetric, more elongated morphology (Fig. 2A). CXCL12 stimulation enhanced adhesion complexes as measured by a 79% increase in the number of adhesion complexes, and a 144% increase in the area occupied by adhesions (Fig. 2B,C).

To determine the effect of ROCK on adhesion complexes, we included the ROCK inhibitor, Y-27632, during cell attachment. Inhibition of ROCK led to accumulation of numerous small adhesion complexes that were restricted to a thin band along the cell periphery (Fig. 2A). Although there was a striking effect on the morphology of the adhesions that form with Y-27632, the total area occupied by adhesions was increased by Y-27632 (Fig. 2B), which might explain why cell attachment does not require ROCK activity. The morphology of the adhesions induced by CXCL12 was blocked by Y-27632, indicating that ROCK activity was necessary to form larger adhesions (Fig. 2A). At this early time following adhesion (20 minutes), the cells treated with Y-27632 appeared larger with relatively regular edges; the asymmetry induced by CXCL12 stimulation is lost when ROCK is inhibited. Thus, these findings show that inhibition of ROCK during cell attachment leads to small clusters of GFP-paxillin-containing complexes near the periphery, analogous to the ROCK-independent adhesions formed during membrane extension (Rottner et al., 1999). These observations led us to propose that whereas ROCK is dispensable for CXCL12-driven attachment and nascent adhesion formation, re-activation of ROCK is required for adhesion complex maturation.

View larger version (38K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2 CXCL12 enhances adhesion complexes, which requires ROCK activity. MCF7-CXCR4 cells were transfected with GFP-paxillin, then suspended and allowed to adhere to collagen-1-coated coverslips on Bioptechs plates maintained at 37°C on the microscope stage. GFP-paxillin-expressing MCF7-CXCR4 cells were pretreated with 10 nM CXCL12 (10 nM, 5 minutes), Y-27632 (10 µM, 10 minutes) or Y-27632 followed by CXCL12 prior to plating to collagen-1-coated dishes. TIRF images were collected within 20 minutes of attachment to show the pattern of GFP-paxillin-containing adhesion complexes. (A) Control cells had a relatively round morphology with adhesions primarily on the periphery; CXCL12 treated cells were more asymmetric, with adhesions in the center of the cell, as well as the periphery. The total area of adhesions (B) and the total number of adhesion per cell (C) were quantified using ImageJ software (n=9 cells from three independent experiments). Treatment with CXCL12 or CXCL12 + Y-27632 significantly increased the total area (*P<0.5) of adhesions as compared with control cells. Treatment with CXCL12 also significantly increased the number of adhesions per cell (*P<0.5). It was not possible to resolve the number of adhesions per cells in Y-27632- or CXCL12 + Y-27632-treated cells, therefore these data are not shown in C.

View larger version (78K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. ROCK inhibition prevents formation of mature adhesion complexes. Immunofluorescence images of MCF7-CXCR4 cells plated for 20 minutes on collagen-1-coated coverslips (A). MCF7 cells were detached from culture plates and incubated at 37°C for 5 minutes with 10 nM CXCL12 (B), 10 minutes with 10 µM Y-27632 (C) or 10 minutes with Y-27632 followed by 5 minutes with CXCL12 (D). Cells were then plated onto collagen-1-coated coverslips in treatment media. After adhering for 20 minutes, cells were fixed with paraformaldehyde and incubated with vinculin, zyxin or FITC-conjugated phosphotyrosine (Y118) paxillin. White boxes indicate regions of the cells shown enlarged above the respective panel. Pretreatment with Y-27632 resulted in small, peripheral adhesion complexes. These small Y-27632-induced adhesion complexes were positive for Y(P)-Pax, but negative for zyxin, indicating that ROCK activity is necessary for adhesion maturation. Inhibition of ROCK by Y-27632 also prevented the formation of mature adhesions in the presence of CXCL12. Scale bars: 10 µm.

View larger version (42K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. CXCL12 promotes migration, which requires ROCK activity. (A) MCF7-CXCR4 cells were plated onto collagen-1-coated MatTek plates in the presence or absence of CXCL12 (10 nM), Y-27632 (10 µM) or CXCL12 (10 nM) + Y-27632 (10 µM) and DIC images were collected every 150 seconds for 4 hours. Cells were maintained during image capture at 37°C and 5% CO2 using a LiveCellTM environmental chamber. (B) Individual cell positions in sequential DIC images were determined using Slidebook cell tracking software, and x-y coordinates [with starting points adjusted to (0,0)] were plotted. The cells that were analyzed are indicated by letters in A. (C) Pie charts representing the fraction of cells undergoing different levels of net displacement were generated from the populations of cells under each treatment condition. Data was pooled from four separate experiments, with n=99 (control), n=63 (CXCL12), n=80 (Y-27632); and n=75 (CXCL12 + Y-27632). Statistical analysis comparing the net displacement of the entire population of cells exposed to each experimental treatment was performed using Fisher's exact test. Pairwise statistical analysis was performed for each treatment condition and the resulting P values are provided in the table on the right.

It is known that CXCL12 and other chemokines can regulate RhoA and ROCK activity, however, the kinetics of regulation are dependent upon the specific experimental system used (Arakawa et al., 2003; Moyer et al., 2007; Tan et al., 2006; Vicente-Manzanares et al., 2002). To determine how CXCL12 affected the ROCK activity during tumor cell attachment, MCF7-CXCR4 cells were pretreated with 10 nM CXCL12 5 minutes prior to plating onto collagen-1-coated dishes, and the phosphorylation state of MYPT and cofilin were measured as indicators of ROCK activity. We found that CXCL12 decreased the overall levels of ROCK activity, although the pattern of ROCK activity in response to attachment was retained (Fig. 5A). Quantification of the blots is provided in supplementary material Fig. S4A,B. We next measured the levels of GTP-RhoA using an ELISA-based activity assay (Fig. 5B,C). As with ROCK activity, cellular attachment induced a transient decrease in RhoA activity, followed by re-activation. Pretreatment with 10 nM CXCL12 decreased the activity of RhoA at early time points of tumor cell adhesion, mirroring the effect of CXCL12 on ROCK activity. These findings are different from that observed in adherent cell cultures, where CXCL12 has been shown to enhance RhoA and ROCK activity (Amine et al., 2009; Azab et al., 2009; Molina-Ortiz et al., 2009). For comparison, we performed analogous assays in steady state adherent cells and found that CXCL12 increased ROCK activity in this context, consistent with other studies (supplementary material Fig. S5). Thus, the influence of CXCL12 on ROCK activity is dependent upon the specific cellular context, and in newly attaching cells, CXCL12 reduces the activity of ROCK.

View larger version (37K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Biphasic ROCK activity during tumor cell attachment. (A) MCF-7 CXCR4 cells were suspended, incubated with or without 10 nM CXCL12, and plated on collagen-1-coated 10 cm2 dishes for the indicated times at 37°C. Dishes were washed to remove non-adherent cells and the remaining adherent cells were lysed with ice-cold modified RIPA buffer with protease and phosphatase inhibitors. Phosphospecific MYPT and cofilin antibodies were used as indicators of ROCK activity. There was a brief but pronounced decrease in ROCK kinase after which ROCK activity recovered to just above initial levels. CXCL12 decreased the level of ROCK activity over all time points measured, although the kinetic pattern of ROCK activity, including the transient decrease in ROCK upon initial attachment, was retained. A representative blot from three independent experiments is shown. Quantification of the western blots is provided in supplementary material Fig. S4. The phosphorylated (P)-ERK blot indicates that suppression of P-MYPT and P-cofilin is not due to a global effect on signaling. Actin and ERK1/2 expression are shown as a loading control. (B) CXCR4 cells were treated as described for A. RhoA activity in cellular lysates was determined by an ELISA-based protocol. Data plotted are the average of duplicate samples from three independent experiments, and the error bars represent the standard error between the three experiments. Treatment with CXCL12 significantly decreased (**P<0.01) RhoA activity prior to and during the initial replating period (*P<0.05). (C) Immunoblot analysis indicates expression of RhoA in cell lysates analyzed for RhoA activity was equivalent (20 µg total lysates per lane). Immunoblot shown is a representative blot from three independent experiments.

It is important to note that phosphorylation of MYPT and cofilin represents the balance of phosphorylation by ROCK and dephosphorylation by cognate phosphatases. The rapid kinetics of changes in ROCK target phosphorylation are an indication of how dynamically ROCK signaling pathways are regulated. Lower MYPT phosphorylation levels suggest that CXCL12 tips the balance more towards dephosphorylation; although preserving the biphasic pattern of ROCK activity in response to adhesion. Even though CXCL12 treatment resulted in less ROCK activity, the reduced activity was sufficient for maturation of adhesions (Fig. 3). Cell migration is dependent upon a balance between integrin adhesion and myosin contractility, such that the most efficient migration occurs when the balance between adhesion and contraction is optimal (Gupton and Waterman-Storer, 2006). Because ROCK influences both integrin adhesion and myosin contractility, the reduced ROCK activity in CXCL12-treated cells might correspond to the optimal levels of ROCK activity needed to enhance cell attachment, adhesion maturation and migration of MCF7-CXCR4 cells.

CXCR4 stimulation increases MCF7-CXCR4 cell attachment under flow conditions
Together our data show that CXCL12 induces attachment to a wide range of adhesive ligands, including both extracellular matrix and endothelial cell adhesion molecules. The goal of the study was to determine if CXCR4-CXCL12 signaling could influence adhesive activity of tumor cells transitioning from suspension to adhesion. Thus, we measured the adhesion of the MCF7-CXCR4 cells under physiological flow conditions following stimulation with 10 nM CXCL12.

MCF7-CXCR4 cells were pumped through a laminar flow chamber in the presence or absence of CXCL12, as described in the Materials and Methods. We found that the flowing tumor cells attached to the collagen 1 under shear stresses ranging from 5.0 to 40 µN/cm². Based on published data, we selected 20 µN/cm² for subsequent analysis (Liang and Dong, 2008; Ngo et al., 2008). Our data shows that CXCL12 leads to a marked, 2.8-fold (180%) increase in the number of cells attached under flow (Fig. 6A). In fact, the increase is significantly more than what was observed in the static attachment assays (26%; Fig. 1). This is probably because shear stress provides a more stringent environment for attachment, and the requirement for CXCL12 signaling becomes more essential. Inhibition of ROCK activity with Y-27632 did not block adhesion induced by CXCL12, similar to what we observed with the static adhesion assays in Fig. 1. Microscopic analysis of the morphology of the newly adherent cells (Fig. 6B) showed that CXCL12 enhances cell spreading, whereas Y-27632 impairs spreading under flow conditions. Thus, CXCL12 and Y-27632 both promote attachment under flow, but only CXCL12 supports cell spreading.

View larger version (38K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Role of ROCK activity in attachment to collagen 1 under flow. MCF7-CXCR4 cells were processed as in Fig. 2 for the attachment assay. Cells were then flowed over collagen-1-coated coverslips in a Bioptechs FCS2 flow chamber at a rate equivalent to 20 µN/cm2, for a total of 20 minutes at 37°C. (A) Cells were pretreated with 10 nM CXCL12 or 10 µM Y-27632 as previously described. DIC images were then captured for ten different fields on the coverslip, and the number of attached cells was counted manually. Graphs depict the number of adherent cells per coverslip, normalized to the control condition, and the average of three to five independent experiments is plotted. Note that both CXCL12 and the ROCK inhibitor lead to significant increases in the number of attached cells. (*sample pairs for which P<0.05 and **sample pairs for which P<0.01; Student's t-test.) (B) Following the attachment assay, coverslips were fixed and stained for F-actin to examine the morphology of the cells. The control cells remain relatively round, but the CXCL12 cells are well spread. By contrast, the cells treated with Y-27632 (abbreviated as Y in some panels) are more spread than controls, but clearly different from those treated with CXCL12. Scale bar: 100 µm. (C) MCF7-CXCR4 cells were transfected with either GFP alone as a control, or GFP-CA ROCK. Following 20 minutes of attachment under flow conditions, fluorescent images were captured for 10 different fields on the coverslip and the number of attached cells was counted manually. Graphical analysis was performed as in A, and represent the average of three independent experiments. (D) Following the attachment assay, cells transfected with GFP (control) or GFP-CA ROCK were fixed and stained for F-actin to examine the morphology of the cells. Both GFP and GFP-CA ROCK cells remain relatively round.

Inhibition of ROCK activity is required for MCF7 cell attachment
The observations that ROCK activity is dispensable for tumor cell attachment, coupled with the decrease in ROCK activity during early adhesion time points, led us to hypothesize that the transient decrease in ROCK activity that occurs following tumor cell adhesion is required for cell attachment. To test the hypothesis that attachment under flow conditions requires the inhibition of ROCK, we expressed a fluorescently tagged constitutively active mutant of ROCK (GFP-CA ROCK) in MCF7-CXCR4 cells and measured the attachment of the active-ROCK-transfected cells as compared with GFP control transfectants under flow conditions. Fig. 6C shows that GFP-CA ROCK expression reduced attachment to collagen 1 by 51%, as compared with GFP controls, and prevented an increase in attachment in response to CXCL12. The morphology of the GFP-CA ROCK cells that did attach to the substratum was relatively round and unspread, even in the presence of CXCL12, demonstrating that too much ROCK activity prevents both attachment and spreading in response to CXCL12 (Fig. 6D).

View larger version (59K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Role of ROCK activity in attachment to endothelial monolayers under flow. MCF7-CXCR4 cells were processed as in Fig. 2 for the attachment assay. Cells were then flowed over endothelial (HUVEC) monolayers that had been stimulated with TNF (see Materials and Methods) in a Bioptechs FCS2 flow chamber, at a rate of 20 µN/cm2, for 20 minutes at 37°C. Tumor cells were distinguished from the endothelial monolayer by labeling with CellTracker Green, and phase-contrast and fluorescent images of 10 separate fields per sample were collected. (A) Graphs depict the number of attached cells per experimental condition, normalized to the control condition, and represent the average from three independent experiments. Note that CXCL12 significantly increases the attachment of tumor cells by the endothelium. (*indicates sample pairs for which P<0.05 and **sample pairs for which P<0.01; Student's t-test.) (B) Representative images of control and CXCL12-treated MCF7-CXCR4 cells attached to the endothelial monolayer that were used for quantification. The fluorescent images of the tumor cells are overlaid on the phase contrast image of the endothelial monolayer. Scale bar: 200 µm. (C) Graphs depict the number of attached cells per experimental condition, normalized to the control condition, and represent the average from three independent experiments. Note that expression of GFP-CA ROCK significantly decreases attachment of tumor cells to the endothelium in both unstimulated and CXCL12 treatment conditions.

	Discussion

Top Summary Introduction Results Discussion Materials and Methods References

 
To better understand the signaling mechanisms that promote metastasis, we designed a system to examine the role of ROCK signaling in CXCR4-driven breast tumor adhesive events. Interestingly, we found that ROCK plays a biphasic role in the regulation of adhesion during tumor cell attachment. Initially, ROCK inhibition is required for cell attachment; but subsequently, re-activation of ROCK is required for maturation of adhesion complexes and migration (Model, Fig. 8). These two distinct requirements for ROCK activity during adhesive events are reflected in the kinetics of ROCK activity. Specifically, analysis of ROCK activity following adhesion shows two distinct phases: a rapid initial decrease in ROCK activity followed by subsequent re-activation (Fig. 5). Interestingly, CXCL12 reduces the activity levels of ROCK at both phases. This suggests that CXCL12 signaling acts in concert with attachment signals to fine-tune ROCK activity for optimal tumor cell adhesive events, as too much or too little activity blocks tumor cell behavior. To more accurately model the environment of tumor cell recruitment, we performed adhesion assays under conditions of shear stress and examined adhesion to extracellular matrix and endothelial cell monolayers (Figs 6, 7). Under conditions of shear stress, the ability of the chemokine CXCL12 to stimulate tumor cell adhesion and spreading was even more pronounced than in the static adhesion assays (Figs 1, 6). Further analysis of cell attachment under flow conditions showed that expression of active ROCK blocked attachment, demonstrating that not only is ROCK activity dispensable for cellular attachment, but inhibition of activity is required for attachment (Figs 6, 7).

Although many factors are likely to contribute to the recruitment of tumor cells to specific organs during metastasis, one mechanism is that adhesion promoted by CXCL12 plays a fundamental role in the process (Balkwill, 2004; Ben-Baruch, 2008; Dittmar et al., 2008; Miles et al., 2008; Witz, 2008). CXCL12 is a known ‘capture’ chemokine for hematopoietic cell recruitment, and as such functions as a gatekeeper for cellular trafficking into specific tissues. The aberrant trafficking characteristics of malignant tumor cells are often thought to be via appropriation of mechanisms normally used during hematopoietic cell recruitment by the vascular endothelium (Kucia et al., 2005; Miles et al., 2008); although tumor cell recruitment involves other factors, including interactions with hematopoietic cells in the bloodstream (Borsig, 2008; de Visser et al., 2006). Direct adhesive interactions between tumor cells and the endothelial lining of the vasculature have been shown to contribute to tumor cell arrest (Gassmann and Haier, 2008; Gassmann et al., 2009; Glinskii et al., 2005; Glinsky, 2006), and there are multiple examples of tumor cells using endothelial adhesion molecules, including selectins, ICAM-1 and VCAM-1, during metastasis (Kobayashi et al., 2007; Zetter, 1993). Following initial cell attachment, the dynamics of the adhesion complexes are important for subsequent cell migration, and the proteins making up the adhesion complexes can be regulated by chemokine signals to promote migration (Kinashi, 2007). To investigate specific mechanisms by which CXCL12 signaling can promote metastasis, we focused on the regulation of tumor cell adhesive events by CXCL12.

View larger version (24K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Model for biphasic role of ROCK during tumor attachment. Curves illustrate typical ROCK activity profile over a timecourse of MCF7-CXCR4 cell attachment. In the first phase, the ROCK activity rapidly decreases, corresponding to the initial step of tumor cell attachment. At this stage, ROCK-independent nascent adhesions form on the cell periphery. In the second phase, ROCK activity increases; this is necessary for maturation of the adhesions, as well as appropriate regulation of membrane protrusions and cell migration. We find that either too much or too little ROCK activity blocks CXCL12-promoted tumor cell behavior at different phases. In the situation where CXCL12-CXCR4 signaling is stimulated, overall ROCK activity levels are lower. Thus, we propose that CXCL12 modulates levels of ROCK activity regulated by attachment, to provide an optimal level of ROCK activity necessary for tumor cell migration.

Although inhibition of ROCK was necessary for initial tumor cell attachment, subsequent re-activation of ROCK was required for downstream responses to CXCL12. Paxillin-containing adhesion complexes were enhanced by CXCL12 through a mechanism that required ROCK activity (Fig. 2). Adhesion complexes can contain at least 150 different proteins, involving both structural and signaling components (Zaidel-Bar et al., 2007a). Investigations into regulation of integrin adhesion complexes have shown that several cytoskeletal and signaling systems are coordinated to control adhesion dynamics. Integrin adhesions are regulated by the structure of the matrix outside the cell, as well as actin and microtubule dynamics, myosin II contractility, and signaling modifiers within the cell (Broussard et al., 2008; Gupton and Waterman-Storer, 2006; Webb et al., 2004) (Choi et al., 2008; Even-Ram et al., 2007; Vicente-Manzanares et al., 2007). The interplay between these systems leads to the formation of nascent adhesions in the lamellipodium, followed by maturation of the nascent adhesions into larger, dynamic complexes which support forward movement of the lamella to advance cell motility (Giannone et al., 2007; Gupton and Waterman-Storer, 2006; Vicente-Manzanares et al., 2007). Our results show that ROCK activity is required for the maturation of nascent adhesions in response to CXCL12 and subsequent cell migration (Figs 3,4). The requirement for ROCK activity during adhesion maturation and cell migration is reflected in the activity assays that show ROCK is re-activated following the initial decrease in activity (Fig. 5). Together, our data show that although ROCK activity is inhibited during cell attachment, its activity must return for CXCL12 to regulate adhesion complexes and cell migration.

Our results show that ROCK has a biphasic response to adhesion: a transient decrease, followed by a return to activity levels greater than or equal to baseline. This is similar to the pattern of RhoA activity in response to integrin engagement (Arthur et al., 2000; Ren et al., 1999) where a transient decrease in RhoA activity was shown to be necessary for cell spreading, although the effects on cell attachment were not assessed. Arthur et al. identified activation of p190RhoGAP as a mediator of the decrease in RhoA activity (Arthur et al., 2000). Interestingly, CXCL12 decreases the overall levels of ROCK activity, while retaining the transient decrease pattern induced by adhesion (Fig. 5B). One possibility is that CXCR4 signaling activates tyrosine kinases, such as Src or Arg, that activate p190RhoGAP, leading to inhibition of RhoA-GTP loading and lower ROCK activity (Bradley et al., 2006; Chang et al., 1995; Fincham et al., 1999). In this way, CXCR4 could act in concert with integrin signaling to modulate ROCK activity to regulate tumor cell adhesion events that support motility.

We found that CXCL12-induced migration requires ROCK activity; however, CXCL12 reduces the level of ROCK activity generated by adhesion. This seemingly paradoxical result suggests that CXCL12 leads to an optimal level of ROCK activity to enhance migration (Model, Fig. 8). In the context of current models for leading edge behavior during migration (Choi et al., 2008; Giannone et al., 2007; Gupton and Waterman-Storer, 2006), CXCL12 might fine-tune ROCK activity to regulate cycles of lamellipodial and adhesion dynamics, favoring advance of the lamella and persistent migration. Further studies are designed to probe how CXCR4 regulates lamellipodial and adhesion dynamics, as a means to understanding mechanisms by which modulation of ROCK activity contributes to tumor cell recruitment.

Metastasis is clearly an important health concern and CXCR4 and ROCK have each been identified as contributing factors. ROCK is a multifunctional kinase: it receives input from a wide range of extracellular signals and is responsible for cellular responses including regulation of the actomyosin cytoskeleton, cell growth and survival, and gene transcription. The mechanisms by which extracellular signals direct ROCK to act at the right place and at the right time to achieve the appropriate biological outcome are presently undefined. Likewise, the effects of CXCR4 are pleiotropic. Although ROCK and CXCR4 might impinge on multiple steps of tumor cell metastasis, our studies implicate tumor cell adhesion to the endothelium as an effect of aberrant CXCL12 signaling, and identify ROCK-dependent regulation of cell adhesion events as a possible mechanism by which CXCR4 promotes tumor cell recruitment and metastasis. Continued investigation into how CXCR4 regulates ROCK signaling to promote tumor cell adhesion and recruitment has the potential for identifying target molecules for blocking CXCR4-driven metastasis.

	Materials and Methods

Top Summary Introduction Results Discussion Materials and Methods References

 
Reagents
Recombinant ICAM-1, VCAM-1, CXCL12 and TNF were purchased from R&D Systems (Minneapolis, MN). Anti-phospho-myosin phosphatase (MYPT; Thr696) was purchased from Millipore (Billerica, MA). Anti-phospho-ERK (1:2000) and anti-phospho-cofilin [Ser3, -cofilin, -ERK, actin and -MYPT (all at 1:1000) were obtained from Cell Signaling (Danvers, MA)]. Y-27632, anti-zyxin (1:100) and anti-vinculin (1:400) were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (St Louis, MO). FITC-labeled phospho-paxillin antibody (Tyr118; used at 1:50 dilution) was purchased from Biosource (Camarillo, CA). CellTracker cell-permeable dye and Lipofectamine 2000 were both purchased from Invitrogen (Carlsbad, CA). Collagen 1 and reduced-growth-factor Matrigel were obtained from BD Biosciences (Bedford, MA). An N-terminal GFP cloning vector was generated by inserting the GFP gene [from EGFP-C1 (Clontech, Mountain View, CA)] into pcDNA3 (Invitrogen) then it was converted to a Destination vector with a conversion kit (Invitrogen) following the manufacturer's instructions (kindly provided by Keith Burridge, UNC Chapel Hill, NC). The resulting nGFP-DEST vector was then used to subclone the constitutively active mutant of ROCKII (pCAG-myc-3-ROCK2 used as a template) as a GFP-fusion protein.

Cell culture
MCF7 breast adenocarcinoma cell lines were routinely cultured in DMEM supplemented with 10% FCS, GlutaMax, insulin, non-essential amino acids, and antibiotics (BD Biosciences). The MCF7-CXCR4 and MCF7-vector control cell lines were generated by lentiviral transduction of the human CXCR4 gene, or empty vector, followed by selection with G418 to generate a stable clonal cell line. HUVEC from pooled donors and EGM2 medium were purchased from Lonza (Basel, Switzerland). Primary cell human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) cultures were used between passages 3 and 6 and monolayer cultures obtained by seeding at a density of 2500 cells/cm² such that the cells formed a confluent monolayer upon plating (Worthylake et al., 2001).

Attachment assays
Ninety-six-well plates were coated with the indicated basement membranes (all at 10 µg/ml) for 2 hours prior to assay. ECM-coated assay plates were then blocked with blocking buffer [serum free medium (SFM) plus 1% BSA] at 37°C for 30 minutes prior to assay. MCF7-CXCR4 cells were labeled with CellTracker (cell-permeable, fluorescent dye, 1:5000 dilution) for 30 minutes followed by starvation with blocking buffer for 2 hours. Cells were then incubated with or without 10 µM Y-27632 for 10 minutes, and/or 10 nM CXCL12 (5 minutes). Trypsinized cells were seeded in 96-well plates (60,000 cell/well) and allowed to adhere at 37°C for 20 minutes, they were then washed with PBS, and fixed in 3.7% formaldehyde for 15 minutes. Fluorescence was detected using a fluorescence plate reader (Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, CA; ex_492nm/em_517nm). Adhesion assays were performed three or more times and each data point is the average of three wells per experiment. Background binding to blocked-only wells was subtracted, and the relative level of adhesion determined by normalizing to collagen 1 control binding, which was included in every experiment as a standard.

Attachment assay under physiological shear stress
Flow experiments were performed with the FCS2 closed chamber from Bioptechs (Butler, PA). Microaqueduct slides (Bioptechs) were coated with collagen 1 (10 µg/ml) overnight at 37°C, 5% CO₂. 40 mm coverslips were placed on the microaqueduct slide separated by inside gaskets of 0.1. Shear stress () was calculated using the equation =(6Qµ)/(wh²), where Q is the volumeric flow rate, µ is the viscosity of the fluid, w is the slide width, and h is the height of the flow chamber (Rops et al., 2007). 5x10⁵ cells/ml were incubated with or without CXCL12 (10 nM, 5 minutes) or Y-27632 (10 µM) in SFM, which remained in the solution during the flow experiments. In some cases, cells were transfected with nGFP-DEST vector alone, or nGFP-CA ROCK (transfection described above) and used in flow-based attachment assays after 48 hours. MCF7-CXCR4 cells were flowed through the chamber at a shear stress of 2 dynes/cm² for 20 minutes at 37°C, after which images from ten regions of the chamber were taken and the number of attached cells per field were counted manually. Images were acquired with a 10x (NA=0.45) objective on an Olympus IX81 microscope, equipped with a Hamamatsu OrcaER camera, run by Slidebook software.

ROCK activity assay (Immunoblot)
To assess ROCK activity during adhesion, cells were serum-starved for 2 hours, then detached using 0.05% trypsin, pooled and centrifuged at 800 g, for 5 minutes, and then incubated alone or with 10 nM CXCL12 for 5 minutes at 37°C. Cells were then plated in incubation medium onto collagen-1-coated (10 µg/ml) culture dishes and allowed to adhere for 5-60 minutes at 37°C. The cells were then washed with PBS to remove any unattached cells and the remaining adherent cells were lysed with ice-cold modified RIPA buffer with protease and phosphatase inhibitors (Sigma). Equal amounts of protein were loaded on 10% polyacrylamide gels, transferred to PVDF membranes, blocked for 1 hour with 5% milk-TBS, and incubated with phosphospecific antibodies to MYPT or cofilin.

For analysis of adherent cells (supplementary material Fig. S5) MCF7-CXCR4 cells were plated 2 days prior to the experiment, then serum starved for 2 hours prior to the addition of 10 nM CXCL12 for the indicated times. Following CXCL12 treatment, cells were then washed with PBS and lysed with ice-cold modified RIPA buffer with protease and phosphatase inhibitors. Equal amounts of protein were loaded onto polyacrylamide gels for immunoblot analysis. For analysis of suspension cells (supplementary material Fig. S5) MCF7-CXCR4 cells were suspended as for the attachment assays, incubated for 10 minutes, then 10 nM CXCL12 was added for the indicated times. To demonstrate that the phosphorylation of MYPT and cofilin were dependent upon ROCK activity, we performed the same assay in the presence of Y-27632 (supplementary material Fig. S5). Following incubation, cells were pelleted at 500 g for 5 minutes and lysed with ice-cold modified RIPA buffer with protease and phosphatase inhibitors (Sigma). Equal amounts of protein were loaded onto polyacrylamide gels for immunoblot analysis.

RhoA and Rac activity assays
To measure Rho and Rac GTP levels, cells were suspended and then replated as described for the ROCK activity assay (see above) in the presence or absence of 10 nM CXCL12. Rho and Rac activity were measured by G-LISA assay (Cytoskeleton, Boulder, CO), with strict adherence to the manufacturer's guidelines. The G-LISA reports levels of active RhoA and Rac normalized by protein input levels. Additionally, equivalent amounts of cellular lysates were taken from RhoA activity lysates and were analyzed by immunoblotting to ensure RhoA expression did not change during the time frame of the experiment.

Immunocytochemistry
MCF7-CXCR4 cells were plated onto collagen-1-coated coverslips (10 µg/ml) and allowed to adhere at 37°C for 20 minutes with 10 nM CXCL12, 10 µM Y-27632. As a control, we also tested an alternative ROCK inhibitor, H1152 (supplementary material Fig. S3). Following the adhesion period, cells were washed with ice-cold PBS and then fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde in PBS. After washing three times with PBS, cells were permeabilized with 0.2% Triton X-100 in PBS, washed once with PBS, and 4% normal goat serum was used as a blocking agent. Fixed cells were then incubated with primary antibodies [anti-phospho-paxillin (1:50), anti-vinculin (1:400) or anti-zyxin (1:100)] for 2 hours, followed by a 1-hour incubation with the appropriate secondary antibody (goat anti-rabbit or anti-mouse Alexa Fluor 488 or Alexa Fluor 594; Jackson ImmunoResearch, West Grove, PA). In some experiments, cells were stained for F-actin with Alexa Fluor 594-phalloidin. Coverslips were then mounted onto glass slides using Prolong AntiFade Gold (Invitrogen). Images were obtained using an Olympus IX81 with a 60x (NA=1.4) oil immersion objective, equipped with a Hamamatusu EM camera, and processed using SlideBook software (Intelligent Imaging Innovations, Denver, CO). Images were further processed using Adobe Photoshop, using only linear adjustments of the signal.

Total internal reflectance fluorescence (TIRF) microscopy
Cells were transfected overnight with GFP-paxillin using Lipofectamine 2000 transfection reagent (Invitrogen) at a ratio of 1:3 (µg/µl) DNA:Lipofectamine according to manufacturer's protocol. The following day, cells were starved in SFM for 2 hours, detached from plates, and replated for 20 minutes on collagen-1-coated Bioptechs Delta T dishes. During attachment and imaging, cells were maintained at 37°C using a Bioptechs Delta T temperature-controlled stage adaptor and heated lid. Images were collected on an Olympus IX71 microscope with a 60x TIRFM objective (NA=1.49). Samples were excited with an argon laser (488 nm) and fluorescent images captured with a Hamamatsu OrcaER digital camera, using Slidebook Software.

Assessment of cell motility
MCF7-CXCR4 cells were detached, pretreated with CXCL12 (10 nM, 5 minutes), Y-27632 (10 µM, 10 minutes) or Y-27632 (10 µM, 10 minutes) followed by CXCL12 (10 nM, 5 minutes), and plated onto collagen-1-coated MatTek dishes. Phase-contrast images of newly adherent cells were taken at 2.5-minute intervals beginning 20 minutes after initial plating, and lasting for 4 hours using an Olympus IX71 microscope with a 20x objective (NA=0.87). Adhering cells were maintained at 37°C, 5% CO₂ using a LiveCell Environmental Chamber (NEUE Group, Ontario, NY). Cell position in sequential images was determined using Slidebook software and x-y coordinates of individual cells were plotted with starting points adjusted to (0,0). Net displacement was calculated from the distance from the starting (x,y) position (t=20 minutes) to final (x,y) position (t=4 hour).

FACS analysis
MCF7, MCF7-CXCR4 and MDA-MB 361 cell cultures were dissociated, then divided into samples that were fixed or fixed and permeabilized, all steps were performed with BD Biosciences Dissociation, Fixation and Permeabilization solutions for Flow Cytometry analysis following the manufacturer's instructions. Each of these was then incubated with anti-CXCR4 (10 µg/ml MAB171, R and D Systems), or no primary antibody, followed by anti-mouse-FITC (Jackson ImmunoResearch). 1x10⁶ cells/ml were analyzed by flow cytometry using a BD CantoII flow cytometer, and the mean fluorescence intensity value was used for comparison of total CXCR4 expression (fixed and permeabilized samples) and surface CXCR4 expression (fixed only) between the different cell types.

	Acknowledgments

 
We appreciate all of the input from the members of the Cell Adhesion and Migration Group at LSU Health Sciences Center. In addition, we would like to thank Chris Turner for the GFP-paxillin construct, Stephania Cormier and Dahui You for the flow cytometry analysis, and Don Mercante for the statistical analyses. The project was supported by grant number P20RR020160 from the National Center for Research Resources, grant number P20RR018766 from the National Center for Research Resources, grant number LEQSF(2006-09)-RD-A-16 from the Louisiana Board of Regents, and Seed Grant Funding from the Louisiana Cancer Research Consortium. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the granting agencies. Deposited in PMC for release after 12 months.

	Footnotes

 
Supplementary material available online at http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/123/3/401/DC1

	References

Top Summary Introduction Results Discussion Materials and Methods References

 

Alon, R. and Ley, K. (2008). Cells on the run: shear-regulated integrin activation in leukocyte rolling and arrest on endothelial cells. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 20, 525-532.[CrossRef][Medline]

Amine, A., Rivera, S., Opolon, P., Dekkal, M., Biard, D. S. F., Bouamar, H., Louache, F., McKay, M. J., Bourhis, J., Deutsch, E., et al. (2009). Novel anti-metastatic action of Cidofovir mediated by inhibition of E6/E7, CXCR4 and Rho/ROCK signaling in HPV<suP>+</suP> tumor cells. PLoS ONE 4, e5018.[CrossRef][Medline]

Arakawa, Y., Bito, H., Furuyashiki, T., Tsuji, T., Takemoto-Kimura, S., Kimura, K., Nozaki, K., Hashimoto, N. and Narumiya, S. (2003). Control of axon elongation via an SDF-1{alpha}/Rho/mDia pathway in cultured cerebellar granule neurons. J. Cell Biol. 161, 381-391.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Arthur, W. T., Petch, L. A. and Burridge, K. (2000). Integrin engagement suppresses RhoA activity via a c-Src-dependent mechanism. Curr. Biol. 10, 719-722.[CrossRef][Medline]

Azab, A. K., Azab, F., Blotta, S., Pitsillides, C. M., Thompson, B., Runnels, J. M., Roccaro, A. M., Ngo, H. T., Melhem, M. R., Sacco, A., et al. (2009). RhoA and Rac1 GTPases play major and differential roles in stromal cell-derived factor-1-induced cell adhesion and chemotaxis in multiple myeloma. Blood 114, 619-629.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Balkwill, F. (2004). The significance of cancer cell expression of the chemokine receptor CXCR4. Semin. Cancer Biol. 14, 171-179.[CrossRef][Medline]

Ben-Baruch, A. (2008). Organ selectivity in metastasis: regulation by chemokines and their receptors. Clin. Exp. Metastasis 25, 345-356.[CrossRef][Medline]

Borsig, L. (2008). The role of platelet activation in tumor metastasis. Expert Rev. Anticancer. Ther. 8, 1247-1255.[CrossRef][Medline]

Bradley, W. D., Hernandez, S. E., Settleman, J. and Koleske, A. J. (2006). integrin signaling through Arg activates p190RhoGAP by promoting its binding to p120RasGAP and recruitment to the membrane. Mol. Biol. Cell 17, 4827-4836.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Broussard, J. A., Webb, D. J. and Kaverina, I. (2008). Asymmetric focal adhesion disassembly in motile cells. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 20, 85-90.[CrossRef][Medline]

Cardone, R. A., Bagorda, A., Bellizzi, A., Busco, G., Guerra, L., Paradiso, A., Casavola, V., Zaccolo, M. and Reshkin, S. J. (2005). Protein kinase a gating of a pseudopodial-located RhoA/ROCK/p38/NHE1 signal module regulates invasion in breast cancer cell lines. Mol. Biol. Cell 16, 3117-3127.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Chang, J. H., Gill, S., Settleman, J. and Parsons, S. J. (1995). c-Src regulates the simultaneous rearrangement of actin cytoskeleton, p190RhoGAP, and p120RasGAP following epidermal growth factor stimulation. J. Cell Biol. 130, 355-368.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Choi, C. K., Vicente-Manzanares, M., Zareno, J., Whitmore, L. A., Mogilner, A. and Horwitz, A. R. (2008). Actin and alpha-actinin orchestrate the assembly and maturation of nascent adhesions in a myosin II motor-independent manner. Nat. Cell Biol. 10, 1039-1050.[CrossRef][Medline]

de Visser, K. E., Eichten, A. and Coussens, L. M. (2006). Paradoxical roles of the immune system during cancer development. Nat. Rev Cancer. 6, 24-37.[CrossRef][Medline]

Dittmar, T., Heyder, C., Gloria-Maercker, E., Hatzmann, W. and Zanker, K. S. (2008). Adhesion molecules and chemokines: the navigation system for circulating tumor (stem) cells to metastasize in an organ-specific manner. Clin. Exp. Metastasis 25, 11-32.[Medline]

Even-Ram, S., Doyle, A. D., Conti, M. A., Matsumoto, K., Adelstein, R. S. and Yamada, K. M. (2007). Myosin IIA regulates cell motility and actomyosin-microtubule crosstalk. Nat. Cell Biol. 9, 299-309.[CrossRef][Medline]

Fincham, V. J., Chudleigh, A. and Frame, M. C. (1999). Regulation of p190 Rho-GAP by v-Src is linked to cytoskeletal disruption during transformation. J. Cell Sci. 112, 947-956.[Abstract]

Friedl, P. and Wolf, K. (2003). Tumour-cell invasion and migration: diversity and escape mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Cancer 3, 362-374.[CrossRef][Medline]

Gassmann, P. and Haier, J. (2008). The tumor cell-host organ interface in the early onset of metastatic organ colonisation. Clin. Exp. Metastasis 25, 171-181.[CrossRef][Medline]

Gassmann, P., Hemping-Bovenkerk, A., Mees, S. and Haier, J. (2009). Metastatic tumor cell arrest in the liver-lumen occlusion and specific adhesion are not exclusive. Int. J. Colorectal Disease 24, 851-858.[CrossRef]

Giannone, G., Dubin-Thaler, B. J., Rossier, O., Cai, Y., Chaga, O., Jiang, G., Beaver, W., Dobereiner, H. G., Freund, Y., Borisy, G., et al. (2007). Lamellipodial actin mechanically links myosin activity with adhesion-site formation. Cell 128, 561-575.[CrossRef][Medline]

Glinskii, O. V., Huxley, V. H., Glinsky, G. V., Pienta, K. J., Raz, A. and Glinsky, V. V. (2005). Mechanical entrapment is insufficient and intercellular adhesion is essential for metastatic cell arrest in distant organs. Neoplasia 7, 522-527.[CrossRef][Medline]

Glinsky, V. V. (2006). Intravascular cell-to-cell adhesive interactions and bone metastasis. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 25, 531-540.[CrossRef][Medline]

Glinsky, V. V., Glinsky, G. V., Glinskii, O. V., Huxley, V. H., Turk, J. R., Mossine, V. V., Deutscher, S. L., Pienta, K. J. and Quinn, T. P. (2003). Intravascular metastatic cancer cell homotypic aggregation at the sites of primary attachment to the endothelium. Cancer Res. 63, 3805-3811.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Gupton, S. L. and Waterman-Storer, C. M. (2006). Spatiotemporal feedback between actomyosin and focal-adhesion systems optimizes rapid cell migration. Cell 125, 1361-1374.[CrossRef][Medline]

Hakuma, N., Kinoshita, I., Shimizu, Y., Yamazaki, K., Yoshida, K., Nishimura, M. and Dosaka-Akita, H. (2005). E1AF/PEA3 activates the Rho/Rho-associated kinase pathway to increase the malignancy potential of non-small-cell lung cancer cells. Cancer Res. 65, 10776-10782.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Heasman, S. J. and Ridley, A. J. (2008). Mammalian Rho GTPases: new insights into their functions from in vivo studies. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 9, p. 690.[CrossRef][Medline]

Imhof, B. A. and Aurrand-Lions, M. (2004). Adhesion mechanisms regulating the migration of monocytes. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 4, 432-444.[CrossRef][Medline]

Itoh, K., Yoshioka, K., Akedo, H., Uehata, M., Ishizaki, T. and Narumiya, S. (1999). An essential part for Rho-associated kinase in the transcellular invasion of tumor cells. Nat. Med. 5, p. 221.[CrossRef][Medline]

Jones, J., Marian, D., Weich, E., Engl, T., Wedel, S., Relja, B., Jonas, D. and Blaheta, R. A. (2007). CXCR4 chemokine receptor engagement modifies integrin dependent adhesion of renal carcinoma cells. Exp. Cell Res. 313, 4051-4065.[CrossRef][Medline]

Joshi, B., Strugnell, S. S., Goetz, J. G., Kojic, L. D., Cox, M. E., Griffith, O. L., Chan, S. K., Jones, S. J., Leung, S. P., Masoudi, H., et al. (2008). Phosphorylated caveolin-1 regulates Rho/ROCK-dependent focal adhesion dynamics and tumor cell migration and invasion. Cancer Res. 68, 8210-8220.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Kamai, T., Tsujii, T., Arai, K., Takagi, K., Asami, H., Ito, Y. and Oshima, H. (2003). Significant association of Rho/ROCK pathway with invasion and metastasis of bladder cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 9, 2632-2641.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Kinashi, T. (2007). Integrin regulation of lymphocyte trafficking: lessons from structural and signaling studies. Adv. Immunol. 93, 185-227.[CrossRef][Medline]

Kitzing, T. M., Sahadevan, A. S., Brandt, D. T., Knieling, H., Hannemann, S., Fackler, O. T., Grosshans, J. and Grosse, R. (2007). Positive feedback between Dia1, LARG, and RhoA regulates cell morphology and invasion. Genes Dev. 21, 1478-1483.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Kobayashi, H., Boelte, K. C. and Lin, P. C. (2007). Endothelial cell adhesion molecules and cancer progression. Curr. Med. Chem. 14, 377-386.[CrossRef][Medline]

Kucia, M., Jankowski, K., Reca, R., Wysoczynski, M., Bandura, L., Allendorf, D. J., Zhang, J., Ratajczak, J. and Ratajczak, M. Z. (2004). CXCR4-SDF-1 signalling, locomotion, chemotaxis and adhesion. J. Mol. Histol. 35, 233-245.[CrossRef][Medline]

Kucia, M., Reca, R., Miekus, K., Wanzeck, J., Wojakowski, W., Janowska-Wieczorek, A., Ratajczak, J. and Ratajczak, M. Z. (2005). Trafficking of normal stem cells and metastasis of cancer stem cells involve similar mechanisms: pivotal role of the SDF-1-CXCR4 axis. Stem Cells 23, 879-894.[CrossRef][Medline]

Laudanna, C. and Alon, R. (2006). Right on the spot. Chemokine triggering of integrin-mediated arrest of rolling leukocytes. Thromb Haemost. 95, 5-11.[Medline]

Ley, K. (2003). Arrest chemokines. Microcirculation 10, 289-295.[CrossRef][Medline]

Li, B., Zhao, W. D., Tan, Z. M., Fang, W. G., Zhu, L. and Chen, Y. H. (2006). Involvement of Rho/ROCK signalling in small cell lung cancer migration through human brain microvascular endothelial cells. FEBS Lett. 580, 4252-4260.[CrossRef][Medline]

Liang, S. and Dong, C. (2008). Integrin VLA-4 enhances sialyl-Lewisx/a-negative melanoma adhesion to and extravasation through the endothelium under low flow conditions. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 295, C701-C707.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Lin, M. T., Lin, B. R., Chang, C. C., Chu, C. Y., Su, H. J., Chen, S. T., Jeng, Y. M. and Kuo, M. L. (2007). IL-6 induces AGS gastric cancer cell invasion via activation of the c-Src/RhoA/ROCK signaling pathway. Int. J. Cancer 120, 2600-2608.[CrossRef][Medline]

Miles, F. L., Pruitt, F. L., van Golen, K. L. and Cooper, C. R. (2008). Stepping out of the flow: capillary extravasation in cancer metastasis. Clin. Exp. Metastasis 25, 305-324.[CrossRef][Medline]

Molina-Ortiz, I., Bartolome, R. A., Hernandez-Varas, P., Colo, G. P. and Teixido, J. (2009). Overexpression of E-cadherin on melanoma cells inhibits chemokine-promoted invasion involving p190RhoGAP/p120ctn-dependent inactivation of RhoA. J. Biol. Chem. 284, 15147-15157.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Moyer, R. A., Wendt, M. K., Johanesen, P. A., Turner, J. R. and Dwinell, M. B. (2007). Rho activation regulates CXCL12 chemokine stimulated actin rearrangement and restitution in model intestinal epithelia. Lab. Invest. 87, p. 807.[CrossRef][Medline]

Muller, A., Homey, B., Soto, H., Ge, N., Catron, D., Buchanan, M. E., McClanahan, T., Murphy, E., Yuan, W., Wagner, S. N., et al. (2001). Involvement of chemokine receptors in breast cancer metastasis. Nature 410, 50-56.[CrossRef][Medline]

Nakajima, M., Hayashi, K., Egi, Y., Katayama, K., Amano, Y., Uehata, M., Ohtsuki, M., Fujii, A., Oshita, K., Kataoka, H., et al. (2003a). Effect of Wf-536, a novel ROCK inhibitor, against metastasis of B16 melanoma. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 52, 319-324.[CrossRef][Medline]

Nakajima, M., Hayashi, K., Katayama, K., Amano, Y., Egi, Y., Uehata, M., Goto, N. and Kondo, T. (2003b). Wf-536 prevents tumor metastasis by inhibiting both tumor motility and angiogenic actions. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 459, 113-120.[CrossRef][Medline]

Narumiya, S., Tanji, M. and Ishizaki, T. (2009). Rho signaling, ROCK and mDia1, in transformation, metastasis and invasion. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 25, 65-76.

Ngo, H. T., Leleu, X., Lee, J., Jia, X., Melhem, M., Runnels, J., Moreau, A. S., Burwick, N., Azab, A. K., Roccaro, A., et al. (2008). SDF-1/CXCR4 and VLA-4 interaction regulates homing in Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia. Blood 112, 150-158.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Ogawa, T., Tashiro, H., Miyata, Y., Ushitora, Y., Fudaba, Y., Kobayashi, T., Arihiro, K., Okajima, M. and Asahara, T. (2007). Rho-associated kinase inhibitor reduces tumor recurrence after liver transplantation in a rat hepatoma model. Am. J. Transplant 7, 347-355.[CrossRef][Medline]

Provenzano, P. P., Inman, D. R., Eliceiri, K. W., Trier, S. M. and Keely, P. J. (2008). Contact guidance mediated three-dimensional cell migration is regulated by Rho/ROCK-dependent matrix reorganization. Biophys. J. 95, 5374-5384.[CrossRef][Medline]

Ren, X. D., Kiosses, W. B. and Schwartz, M. A. (1999). Regulation of the small GTP-binding protein Rho by cell adhesion and the cytoskeleton. EMBO J. 18, 578-785.[CrossRef][Medline]

Riento, K. and Ridley, A. J. (2003). Rocks: multifunctional kinases in cell behaviour. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 4, 446-456.[CrossRef][Medline]

Rops, A. L., Jacobs, C. W., Linssen, P. C., Boezeman, J. B., Lensen, J. F., Wijnhoven, T. J., van den Heuvel, L. P., van Kuppevelt, T. H., van der Vlag, J. and Berden, J. H. (2007). Heparan sulfate on activated glomerular endothelial cells and exogenous heparinoids influence the rolling and adhesion of leucocytes. Nephrol. Dial Transplant 22, 1070-1077.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Rosel, D., Brabek, J., Tolde, O., Mierke, C. T., Zitterbart, D. P., Raupach, C., Bicanova, K., Kollmannsberger, P., Pankova, D., Vesely, P., et al. (2008). Up-regulation of Rho/ROCK signaling in sarcoma cells drives invasion and increased generation of protrusive forces. Mol. Cancer Res. 6, 1410-1420.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Rottner, K., Hall, A. and Small, J. V. (1999). Interplay between Rac and Rho in the control of substrate contact dynamics. Curr. Biol. 9, 640-648.[CrossRef][Medline]

Sahai, E. and Marshall, C. J. (2003). Differing modes of tumour cell invasion have distinct requirements for Rho/ROCK signalling and extracellular proteolysis. Nat. Cell Biol. 5, 711-719.[CrossRef][Medline]

Samaniego, R., Sanchez-Martin, L., Estecha, A. and Sanchez-Mateos, P. (2007). Rho/ROCK and myosin II control the polarized distribution of endocytic clathrin structures at the uropod of moving T lymphocytes. J. Cell Sci. 120, 3534-3543.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Steeg, P. S. (2006). Tumor metastasis: mechanistic insights and clinical challenges. Nat. Med. 12, 895-904.[CrossRef][Medline]

Takamura, M., Sakamoto, M., Genda, T., Ichida, T., Asakura, H. and Hirohashi, S. (2001). Inhibition of intrahepatic metastasis of human hepatocellular carcinoma by Rho-associated protein kinase inhibitor Y-27632. Hepatology 33, 577-581.[CrossRef][Medline]

Tan, W., Martin, D. and Gutkind, J. S. (2006). The G{alpha}13-Rho Signaling axis is required for SDF-1-induced migration through CXCR4. J. Biol. Chem. 281, 39542-39549.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Titus, B., Schwartz, M. A. and Theodorescu, D. (2005). Rho proteins in cell migration and metastasis. Crit. Rev. Eukaryot. Gene Expr. 15, 103-114.[CrossRef][Medline]

Torka, R., Thuma, F., Herzog, V. and Kirfel, G. (2006). ROCK signaling mediates the adoption of different modes of migration and invasion in human mammary epithelial tumor cells. Exp. Cell Res. 312, 3857-3871.[CrossRef][Medline]

Vicente-Manzanares, M., Cabrero, J. R., Rey, M., Perez-Martinez, M., Ursa, A., Itoh, K. and Sanchez-Madrid, F. (2002). A role for the Rho-p160 Rho coiled-coil kinase axis in the chemokine stromal cell-derived factor-1{alpha}-induced lymphocyte actomyosin and microtubular organization and chemotaxis. J. Immunol. 168, 400-410.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Vicente-Manzanares, M., Zareno, J., Whitmore, L., Choi, C. K. and Horwitz, A. F. (2007). Regulation of protrusion, adhesion dynamics, and polarity by myosins IIA and IIB in migrating cells. J. Cell Biol. 176, 573-580.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Wang, W., Goswami, S., Sahai, E., Wyckoff, J. B., Segall, J. E. and Condeelis, J. S. (2005). Tumor cells caught in the act of invading: their strategy for enhanced cell motility. Trends Cell Biol. 15, 138-145.[CrossRef][Medline]

Webb, D. J., Donais, K., Whitmore, L. A., Thomas, S. M., Turner, C. E., Parsons, J. T. and Horwitz, A. F. (2004). FAK-Src signalling through paxillin, ERK and MLCK regulates adhesion disassembly. Nat. Cell Biol. 6, p. 154.[CrossRef][Medline]

Wennerberg, K. and Der, C. J. (2004). Rho-family GTPases: it's not only Rac and Rho (and I like it). J. Cell Sci. 117, 1301-1312.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Wilkinson, S., Paterson, H. F. and Marshall, C. J. (2005). Cdc42-MRCK and Rho-ROCK signalling cooperate in myosin phosphorylation and cell invasion. Nat. Cell Biol. 7, p. 255.[CrossRef][Medline]

Witz, I. P. (2008). Tumor-microenvironment interactions: dangerous liaisons. Adv. Cancer Res. 100, 203-229.[CrossRef][Medline]

Wong, C. C., Wong, C. M., Tung, E. K., Man, K. and Ng, I. O. (2009). Rho-kinase 2 is frequently overexpressed in hepatocellular carcinoma and involved in tumor invasion. Hepatology 49, 1583-1594.[CrossRef][Medline]

Worthylake, R. A. and Burridge, K. (2001). Leukocyte transendothelial migration: orchestrating the underlying molecular machinery. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 13, 569-577.[CrossRef][Medline]

Worthylake, R. A., Lemoine, S., Watson, J. M. and Burridge, K. (2001). RhoA is required for monocyte tail retraction during transendothelial migration. J. Cell Biol. 154, 147-160.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Wyckoff, J. B., Pinner, S. E., Gschmeissner, S., Condeelis, J. S. and Sahai, E. (2006). ROCK- and myosin-dependent matrix deformation enables protease-independent tumor-cell invasion in vivo. Curr. Biol. 16, 1515-1523.[CrossRef][Medline]

Xue, F., Zhang, J. J., Qiu, F., Zhang, M., Chen, X. S., Li, Q. G., Han, L. Z., Xi, Z. F. and Xia, Q. (2007). Rho signaling inhibitor, Y-27632, inhibits invasiveness of metastastic hepatocellular carcinoma in a mouse model. Chin. Med. J. 120, 2304-2307.[Medline]

Ying, H., Biroc, S. L., Li, W. W., Alicke, B., Xuan, J. A., Pagila, R., Ohashi, Y., Okada, T., Kamata, Y. and Dinter, H. (2006). The Rho kinase inhibitor fasudil inhibits tumor progression in human and rat tumor models. Mol. Cancer Ther. 5, 2158-2164.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Zaidel-Bar, R., Itzkovitz, S., Ma'ayan, A., Iyengar, R. and Geiger, B. (2007a). Functional atlas of the integrin adhesome. Nat. Cell Biol. 9, 858-867.[CrossRef][Medline]

Zaidel-Bar, R., Milo, R., Kam, Z. and Geiger, B. (2007b). A paxillin tyrosine phosphorylation switch regulates the assembly and form of cell-matrix adhesions. J. Cell Sci. 120, 137-148.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Zetter, B. R. (1993). Adhesion molecules in tumor metastasis. Semin. Cancer Biol. 4, 219-229.[Medline]

Zlotnik, A. (2006). Chemokines and cancer. Int. J. Cancer 119, 2026-2029.[CrossRef][Medline]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

Twitter

This Article Summary Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Supplementary Material All Versions of this Article: jcs.052167v1 123/3/401    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Struckhoff, A. P. Articles by Worthylake, R. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Struckhoff, A. P. Articles by Worthylake, R. A. Pubmed/NCBI databases Gene GEO Profiles HomoloGene UniGene Compound via MeSH Substance via MeSH Social Bookmarking                         What's this?