|
|
|
|
Vol. 11, Issue 9, 2885-2900, September 2000
3
1 Integrin
Modulates Endothelial Cell Responses to Thrombospondin-1
and
*Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National
Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892; and
Molecular Biology Institute, University of California Los
Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90025
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Thrombospondin-1 (TSP1) can inhibit angiogenesis by interacting
with endothelial cell CD36 or proteoglycan receptors. We have now
identified
3
1 integrin as an additional receptor for TSP1 that modulates angiogenesis and the in vitro behavior of endothelial cells. Recognition of TSP1 and an
3
1 integrin-binding
peptide from TSP1 by normal endothelial cells is induced after loss of cell-cell contact or ligation of CD98. Although confluent endothelial cells do not spread on a TSP1 substrate,
3
1 integrin
mediates efficient spreading on TSP1 substrates of endothelial cells
deprived of cell-cell contact or vascular endothelial cadherin
signaling. Activation of this integrin is independent of
proliferation, but ligation of the
3
1 integrin modulates
endothelial cell proliferation. In solution, both intact TSP1 and the
3
1 integrin-binding peptide from TSP1 inhibit
proliferation of sparse endothelial cell cultures independent of their
CD36 expression. However, TSP1 or the same peptide immobilized on the
substratum promotes their proliferation. The TSP1 peptide, when added
in solution, specifically inhibits endothelial cell migration and
inhibits angiogenesis in the chick chorioallantoic membrane, whereas a
fragment of TSP1 containing this sequence stimulates angiogenesis.
Therefore, recognition of immobilized TSP1 by
3
1 integrin
may stimulate endothelial cell proliferation and angiogenesis. Peptides
that inhibit this interaction are a novel class of angiogenesis inhibitors.
| |
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Angiogenesis under normal and pathological conditions is regulated
by both positive and negative signals received from soluble growth
factors and components of the extracellular matrix (reviewed by
Folkman, 1995
; Polverini, 1995
; Hanahan and Folkman, 1996
). Thrombospondins are a family of extracellular matrix proteins that have
diverse effects on cell adhesion, motility, proliferation, and survival
(reviewed by Bornstein, 1992
, 1995
; Roberts, 1996
). Two members of this
family, thrombospondin-1 (TSP1) and thrombospondin-2, are inhibitors of
angiogenesis (Good et al., 1990
; Volpert et al.,
1995
). TSP1 inhibits growth, sprouting, and motility responses of
endothelial cells in vitro (Good et al., 1990
; Taraboletti et al., 1990
; Iruela Arispe et al., 1991
;
Canfield and Schor, 1995
; Tolsma et al., 1997
) and, under
defined conditions, induces programmed cell death in endothelial cells
(Guo et al., 1997b
). TSP1 inhibits angiogenesis in vivo in
the rat corneal pocket and chick chorioallantoic membrane (CAM)
angiogenesis assays (Good et al., 1990
; Iruela-Arispe
et al., 1999
). The ability of TSP1 overexpression to
suppress tumor growth and neovascularization in several tumor xenograft
models provides further evidence for an antiangiogenic activity of TSP1
(Dameron et al., 1994
; Weinstat-Saslow et al.,
1994
; Sheibani and Frazier, 1995
; Hsu et al., 1996
).
Circulating TSP1 may also inhibit neovascularization of micrometastases
in some cancers (Morelli et al., 1998
; Volpert et
al., 1998
). A few studies, however, have concluded that TSP1 also
has proangiogenic activities under specific conditions (BenEzra
et al., 1993
; Nicosia and Tuszynski, 1994
). Observations of
increased TSP1 expression during endothelial injury and wound repair
are also difficult to explain with a purely antiangiogenic activity for
TSP1 (Vischer et al., 1988
; Munjal et al., 1990
;
Reed et al., 1995
). These apparently contradictory reports
have led to confusion about the physiological role of TSP1 as an
angiogenesis regulator.
To understand the factors that control the complex responses of
endothelium to TSP1, we must define the receptors and signaling pathways that mediate its actions. TSP1 interacts with several receptors on endothelial cells, including the
v
3 integrin
(Lawler et al., 1988
), heparan sulfate proteoglycans
(Vischer et al., 1997
), CD36 (Dawson et al.,
1997
), the low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein (Godyna
et al., 1995
), and CD47 (Gao et al., 1996
). TSP1
peptides that bind to CD36, CD47, or heparan sulfate proteoglycans
inhibit endothelial responses to growth factors in vitro and
angiogenesis in vivo (Tolsma et al., 1993
; Vogel et
al., 1993
; Iruela-Arispe et al., 1999
; Kanda et
al., 1999
). CD36 expression is required for TSP1 to inhibit the
motility response of bovine and human endothelial cells stimulated by
FGF2 (Dawson et al., 1997
). However, proliferation of
several cell types that do not express CD36, including large vessel
endothelial cells, is also inhibited by TSP1 and heparin-binding
peptides from TSP1 (Guo et al., 1997a
, 1998
). Based on
activities in the CAM angiogenesis assay, both of these TSP1 sequences
can inhibit angiogenesis in vivo (Iruela-Arispe et al.,
1999
). Finally, a sequence from the N-terminal domain of TSP1 can
disrupt focal adhesions in endothelial cells, but the effects of this
response on angiogenesis have not been defined (Murphy-Ullrich et
al., 1993
).
TSP1 may also influence angiogenesis indirectly through activation of
latent TGF
(Schultz-Cherry and Murphy-Ullrich, 1993
), which in turn
can either stimulate or inhibit angiogenesis (Roberts et
al., 1986
; Passaniti et al., 1992
). Based on
differences in the phenotypes of thbs1 and
tgf
1 null mice and the inability of TGF
antagonists to block many activities of TSP1 in vitro, activation of
latent TGF
probably mediates only a subset of endothelial responses
to TSP1 (Crawford et al., 1998
).
Integrins are also known to regulate angiogenesis (Brooks
et al., 1994
). Antagonists of the
v
3 integrin
are potent inhibitors of neovascularization induced by growth factors
or in tumors (Brooks et al., 1995
). Although
v
3 is a
known TSP1 receptor on endothelial cells (Lawler et al.,
1988
), its role in the modulation of angiogenesis by TSP1 has not been
defined. The CD47-binding sequence in TSP1 may increase binding of
v
3 integrin ligands, including TSP1 itself (Gao et
al., 1996
; Sipes et al., 1999
). However, a recombinant fragment of TSP1 containing the type 3 repeats that bind to
v
3 did not inhibit angiogenesis (Iruela-Arispe et al., 1999
),
suggesting that the RGD sequence in TSP1 is not involved in its effects
on angiogenesis.
TSP1 interacts with several
1 integrins, including
4
1
and
5
1 on T lymphocytes (Yabkowitz et al., 1993
),
3
1 on neurons (DeFreitas et al., 1995
), and
3
1
and
4
1 on breast carcinoma cells (Chandrasekaran et
al., 1999
; Krutzsch et al., 1999
). The
3
1
integrin is localized in cell-cell junctions of endothelial cells in a complex with some tetraspan family proteins (Yanez-Mo et al., 1998
). Antibodies to several components of this
complex, including the
3
1 integrin, inhibited endothelial
cell motility in wound repair assays (Yanez-Mo et al.,
1998
). Based on this observation and our recent finding that
recognition of TSP1 by the
3
1 integrin is tightly
regulated in breast carcinoma cells (Chandrasekaran et al.,
1999
) and small cell lung carcinoma cells (Guo et al.,
2000
), we have examined the role of this integrin in the
responses of endothelial cells to TSP1 and the regulation of
angiogenesis. We demonstrate here that recognition of TSP1 by
endothelial cell
3
1 integrin is selectively induced after loss of cell-cell contact. These cells efficiently spread on
immobilized TSP1, and this interaction stimulates endothelial cell
proliferation. An
3
1 integrin-binding peptide from the
N-terminal domain of TSP1 (Krutzsch et al., 1999
) also
modulates endothelial cell proliferation and is a potent inhibitor of
endothelial wound repair in vitro and angiogenesis in vivo.
| |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Proteins and Peptides
TSP1 and plasma fibronectin were purified from human platelets
and plasma, respectively, obtained from the National Institutes of
Health Blood Bank (Bethesda, MD) (Akiyama and Yamada, 1985
; Roberts
et al., 1994
). Human vitronectin was obtained from Sigma Chemical (St. Louis, MO), and bovine type I collagen was obtained from
Becton Dickinson Labware Division (Franklin Lakes, NJ). Human placental
laminin was obtained from GIBCO-Life Technologies (Gaithersburg, MD).
Recombinant N-terminal fragments of TSP1 were described previously (Vogel et al., 1993
). Synthetic peptides from TSP1 and
laminin-1 that are recognized by the
3
1 integrin and
structural analogues defective in
3
1 integrin binding
were prepared as described previously (Guo et al., 1992
;
Krutzsch et al., 1999
), and the peptide GRGDSP was
obtained from Life Technologies-BRL (Grand Island, NY). Nonpeptide
antagonist of
v
3 (SB223245) was provided by Dr. William H. Miller
(SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, King of Prussia, PA) (Keenan
et al., 1997
).
Cells and Culture
Bovine aortic endothelial (BAE) cells were isolated from fresh bovine aortae and were used at passages 3-10. BAE cells were maintained at 37°C in 5% CO2 in DMEM (low-glucose) medium containing 10% FCS, 4 mM glutamine, 25 µg/ml ascorbic acid, and 500 U/ml each of penicillin G, potassium, and streptomycin sulfate. Media components were obtained from Biofluids (Rockville, MD). Primary human umbilical vein endothelial (HUVE) cells were provided by Dr. Derrick Grant (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, Bethesda, MD; NIDCR), and human dermal microvascular endothelial (HDME) cells were purchased from Clonetics (San Diego, CA). HUVE cells were maintained in medium 199 supplemented with 20% FCS, 10 µg/ml heparin, 80 µg/ml endothelial mitogen (Biomedical Technologies, Stoughton, MA), glutamine, penicillin, and streptomycin sulfate. HDME cells were maintained in MCDB medium containing glutamine, 5% FCS, 10 ng/ml EGF, 1 µg/ml hydrocortisone, 50 µg/ml ascorbic acid, 30 µg/ml heparin, 4 ng/ml FGF2, 4 ng/ml VEGF, 5 ng/ml insulin-like growth factor-1, and 50 µg/ml gentamicin.
Cell proliferation was measured with the use of the Cell-Titer
colorimetric assay (Promega, Madison, WI) as described previously (Vogel et al., 1993
). A 100-µl volume of BAE cell
suspension at 50,000 cells/ml in DMEM containing 1% FBS and
supplemented with 10 ng/ml FGF2 was plated in triplicate in 96-well
tissue culture plates either in the presence of peptides in solution or
in wells that were precoated with 100 µl of the peptides at 4°C
overnight and blocked with 1% BSA before cells were added. Cells were
grown for 72 h at 37°C in a humidified incubator with 5%
CO2. HUVE cell proliferation was measured by the
same protocol except that medium 199 containing 5% FCS without heparin
was used. HDME cell proliferation was measured in MCDB growth medium
containing 5% FCS but without heparin, VEGF, or FGF2.
Immunoprecipitation and Western Blotting
Cells grown under sparse and confluent conditions were surface
labeled with a 1 mg/ml solution of sulfo-NHS-LC-Biotin (Pierce, Rockford, IL) at 4°C for 1.5 h. After lysis in RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 1% NP40, 0.5% sodium deoxycholate, 1 mM
EGTA, 1 mM NaF, supplemented with 10 µg/ml each of the following protease inhibitors: antipain, pepstatin A, chymostatin, leupeptin, aprotinin, soybean trypsin inhibitor, and 1 mM PMSF), the lysate was
precleared by centrifugation and the protein concentration was
determined by bicinchoninic acid assay (Pierce). Equal volumes containing equal protein concentrations were immunoprecipitated with
the use of the
3
1 integrin antibody P1B5 prebound to
anti-mouse immunoglobulin G agarose (Sigma). The immune complexes were
washed three times with Tris-buffered saline (140 mM NaCl, 20 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 1% Tween 20), eluted with sample buffer containing 10% 2-mercaptoethanol, heated, and fractionated on precast SDS gels (Bio-Rad, Richmond, CA). After transfer to polyvinylidene difluoride membrane, the proteins were detected with the use of HRP-streptavidin (Pierce) and visualized with the use of chemiluminescent substrate (Pierce).
For Western analysis, proteins on membranes were incubated with anti-VE-cadherin (Transduction Laboratories, Lexington, KY). After repeated washes, bound antibody was detected with the use of HRP-conjugated anti-mouse antibody, followed by chemiluminescent substrate.
Adhesion
TSP1 and TSP1 peptides in Dulbecco's PBS were adsorbed on bacteriological polystyrene dishes by overnight incubation at 4°C. After blocking with 1% BSA in Dulbecco's PBS, adhesion assays were performed by adding cells suspended in DMEM (BAE cells) or medium 199 (human cells) containing 1 mg/ml BSA. Cell attachment and spreading was quantified microscopically. For some experiments, cell spreading was quantified morphometrically with the use of Image-Pro Plus version 4 software (Media Cybernetics, Silver Spring, MD).
Inhibition assays were performed with the use of the following
function-blocking antibodies: P1B5 (Life Technologies-BRL;
3
1),
P4C2 (Life Technologies-BRL;
4
1), and mAb13 (Dr. Ken Yamada, NIDCR; anti
1). The
1 integrin-activating
antibody TS2/16 (Hemler et al., 1984
) and the CD98 antibody
4F2 were prepared from hybridomas obtained from the American Type
Culture Collection (Rockville, MD). The function-blocking vascular
endothelial (VE)-cadherin (cadherin-5) antibody, clone 75, was obtained
from Transduction Laboratories, and the function-blocking PECAM-1
(CD31) antibody, HEC7, was from Endogen (Woburn, MA).
To examine the regulation of endothelial cell adhesion by cell-cell
contact, cells were grown to confluent monolayers in tissue culture
dishes. The confluent cells were pretreated with a function-blocking anti-VE-cadherin antibody (Hordijk et al., 1999
),
anti-PECAM-1 antibody, histamine, or lipopolysaccharide or dissociated
with the use of EDTA and replated as indicated at low density to
prevent cell-cell contact.
In some experiments, the cells were treated with 5-fluorouracil to prevent proliferation. BAE cells were grown to confluence in 100-mm tissue culture dishes with complete growth medium. Twenty-four hours before the adhesion assay was performed, the confluent cells were treated with a sterile solution of 5-fluorouracil to a final concentration of 10 µg/ml. In parallel, another 100-mm dish of confluent endothelial cells was split into several 100-mm dishes such that after 24 h the cells would not contact each other. The sparse cells were treated with the same concentration of 5-fluorouracil as the confluent cells. Appropriate controls were treated in the same manner without 5-fluorouracil. After incubation at 37°C for 24 h, the cells were harvested by dissociation with EDTA and used in the adhesion assay. Complete inhibition of DNA synthesis was verified by [3H]thymidine incorporation.
Scratch Wound Repair
The in vitro wound-healing assay used was a slight modification
of that described by Joyce et al. (1989)
. A confluent
monolayer of BAE cells pretreated with 10 µg/ml 5-fluorouracil for
24 h was used in this assay. A straight wound ~2.0 mm wide was
made in the monolayers with the use of the flat edge of a sterile cell scraper (Costar 3010, Corning, NY), and the cells were allowed to migrate back into the wound site in the presence of TSP1 peptides. Mitosis of the BAE cells in the monolayers was inhibited by the addition of 5-fluorouracil, so that the rate of wound closure was due
solely to the migration of cells into the wound sites. The distances
between the wound margins were measured as soon as the wound was made
and 24 h later with the use of a grid incorporated into the
eyepiece of the microscope. All data represent the results obtained
from three independent scratch wounds for each peptide tested.
CAM Angiogenesis Assay
Fertilized Leghorn chicken eggs were obtained from Ramona Duck
Farm (Westminster, CA). At d 3 of development, the embryos were placed
on 100-mm Petri dishes. Assays were performed as described previously
(Iruela-Arispe et al., 1999
). Briefly, vitrogen gels containing growth factors FGF-2 (50 ng/gel) and VEGF (250 ng/gel) were
allowed to polymerize in the presence or absence of TSP1 peptides.
Peptides were filtered on Centricon P100 (Amicon, Inc, Beverly,
MA) before their analysis on the CAM assays to eliminate traces
of endotoxin. Pellets were applied to the outer one-third of the CAM,
and the assay was performed for 24 h. Detection of capillary
growth was done by injection of FITC-dextran in the bloodstream and
observation of the pellets under a fluorescent inverted microscope.
Positive controls (growth factors and vehicle) as well as negative
controls (vehicle alone) were placed in the same CAM and used as
reference of 100% stimulation or baseline inhibition (0%), and the
response to the peptides was determined according to these internal
controls. Assays were performed in duplicate in each CAM and in four
independent CAMs (total of eight pellets). Statistical evaluation of
the data was performed to determine whether groups differed
significantly from random by analysis of contingency with Yates' correction.
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
3
1 Integrin Is a TSP1 Receptor on Endothelial Cells
Based on previous publications,
v
3 is regarded as the major
integrin receptor for TSP1 on endothelial cells (Lawler
et al., 1988
; Gupta et al., 1999
). However, an
3
1 integrin-binding sequence from residues 190-201 of
TSP1 (peptide 678 [FQGVLQNVRFVF]) (Krutzsch et al., 1999
)
also promoted endothelial cell adhesion (Figure 1A). Endothelial cells attached
specifically on immobilized TSP1 peptide 678 but not on the control
peptide 690 (FQGVLQNVAFVF), in which the essential Arg residue was
substituted with an Ala residue. Two related peptides with amino acid
substitutions that diminished their activity for mediating
3
1-dependent adhesion of breast carcinoma cells (Krutzsch
et al., 1999
) only weakly supported endothelial cell
adhesion (Figure 1A). All of the peptides had similar capacities for
adsorption on the polystyrene substrate used for these assays (2.5-3.8
pmol/mm2), so the differences in activities of
these peptides did not result from differences in their adsorption.
|
Recognition of TSP1 by the
3
1 Integrin Is Regulated
by Cell-Cell Contact
Although some investigators have reported that TSP1 promotes
spreading of endothelial cells (Taraboletti et al., 1990
;
Morandi et al., 1993
), others have concluded that TSP1
cannot promote endothelial cell spreading and disrupts spreading of
endothelial cells attached on other matrix proteins (Lahav, 1988
;
Lawler et al., 1988
; Murphy-Ullrich and Höök,
1989
; Chen et al., 1996
). In agreement with the latter
reports, BAE cells harvested from a confluent cobblestone did not
spread on TSP1 (Figures 1B and 2, a and
g). However, when a duplicate culture of the same cells was replated at
low density to minimize cell-cell contact and harvested at the same
time after feeding, they did spread on TSP1 (Figures 1B and 2, c and
g). Up-regulation of spreading on TSP1 after loss of cell-cell contact
was highly significant (p < 0.0001) and specific for TSP1,
because spreading on fibronectin and collagen were not induced under
the same conditions (Figures 1B and 2, b and d). Sparse cells also
displayed a significant increase in spreading on vitronectin (p = 0.001), although ~60% of the cells harvested from a confluent
monolayer also spread on vitronectin, compared with <10% on TSP1
(Figure 1B).
|
Density-dependent spreading on intact TSP1 was inhibited by the
3
1 integrin-binding peptide 678 added in solution but
was not significantly inhibited by the control peptide 690 (Figure 2e
and our unpublished results). Inhibition by the active peptide was
specific for endothelial cell spreading on TSP1, because peptide 678 did not inhibit spreading on fibronectin (Figure 2f).
The increase in spreading observed in the sparse culture was not
observed in a parallel culture replated at confluent density (Figure
1C). To determine whether this response was triggered by cell contact
signals or proliferation induced by loss of cell-cell contact, BAE
cells were pretreated with 5-fluorouracil to block proliferation.
Treatment with 5-fluorouracil had no effect on the spreading on TSP1 of
cells harvested at confluence (p > 0.6), and the stimulation of
spreading induced by replating without cell-cell contact was not
inhibited by 5-fluorouracil (Figure 1C). Therefore, activation of
3
1 integrin after loss of cell-cell contact is
independent of proliferation.
Similar density dependence for spreading on TSP1 and
the TSP1 peptide 678 was observed with microvascular and large vessel human endothelial cells (Figure 3). HUVE
cells harvested from a confluent monolayer spread less on immobilized
TSP1 than those from a duplicate sparse culture (Figure 3A; p < 0.001). For both umbilical vein and microvascular cells, addition of
the
1 integrin-activating antibody TS2/16 increased
spreading on TSP1 or the
3
1-binding sequence from TSP1 to the
same extent (Figure 3), suggesting that the activation state of
3
1 rather than its level of expression was induced by loss of
cell-cell contact. When HUVE cells were replated at their original
density for 24 h, spreading on TSP1 (p = 0.2) or the peptide
(p = 0.3) was not induced significantly, replicating the behavior
of bovine endothelial cells shown in Figure 1.
|
Regulation of integrin activation by cell-cell contact was
specific for
3
1 in the human endothelial cells. In contrast to the BAE cells, sparse cultures of both HUVE and HDME cells spread slightly less on the
v
3 ligand vitronectin than did cells from confluent cultures (Figure 3). The
2
1 integrin was also
not activated by loss of cell-cell contact, as assessed by spreading on a type I collagen substrate. The dependence on
2
1 for adhesion on type I collagen was verified with the use of an
2
1-blocking antibody (our unpublished results). However, in both sparse and confluent cultures, the
2
1 integrin was only partially
active based on stimulation of spreading on collagen by the activating antibody TS2/16. Although human placental laminin was reported to be an
3
1 integrin ligand (Delwel et al., 1994
),
cells from sparse endothelial cultures showed similar or decreased
spreading on placental laminin compared with cells from confluent
cultures, and their spreading was only slightly
stimulated by TS2/16 (Figure 3). Adhesion of the
endothelial cells on laminin may be mediated primarily by
6
1
integrin (Defilippi et al., 1992
), which could mask
the regulation of
3
1 binding. To detect whether
3
1-dependent laminin recognition was regulated, we tested an
3
1 integrin-binding sequence from laminin-1, peptide GD6
(Gehlsen et al., 1992
). Sparse endothelial cultures showed
the expected increase in spreading on the laminin-1 peptide and
comparable activation by the antibody TS2/16 in both umbilical vein and
microvascular cells (Figure 3). Therefore, regulation of
integrin activation under these conditions is specific for
3
1 and can be detected with the use of
3
1-binding sequences
from both TSP1 and laminin-1.
Relative Roles of
v
3 and
3
1 Integrins and CD36
in Endothelial Cell Adhesion on TSP1
The increased spreading of sparse BAE cells on TSP1 is mediated at
least in part by
3
1 integrin, because a TSP1 peptide that
binds to this integrin (Krutzsch et al., 1999
)
inhibited spreading on TSP1 by 55% but did not inhibit spreading on
fibronectin or vitronectin substrates (Figure
4A). The
v
3 integrin also plays some role in BAE cell spreading on TSP1, because the
v integrin antagonist SB223245 partially inhibited spreading on TSP1. The effect of these two inhibitors was additive, producing a 76%
inhibition of spreading when combined (p = 0.006 compared with
peptide 678 alone). Similar results were obtained with the use of the
v
3 peptide antagonist GRGDSP alone and in combination with
peptide 678. Approximately 20% of the spreading response on TSP1 was
resistant to the GRGDSP peptide, but combining this peptide with the
3
1 integrin-binding peptide completely inhibited spreading on TSP1 (p = 0.003 compared with peptide 678 alone).
|
In contrast, sparse culture of human endothelial cells used the
3
1 integrin exclusively to mediate spreading on TSP1
(Figure 4, B-D). Umbilical vein (HUVE) cell spreading on TSP1 was
inhibited 70 ± 7% by peptide 678 (p < 0.001), whereas
spreading on vitronectin was only marginally inhibited (Figure
5B; p = 0.06). Conversely, the
v
3 antagonist SB223245 completely inhibited spreading on vitronectin but did not significantly inhibit spreading on TSP1. Combining the two antagonists produced no significant increase in
inhibition relative to peptide 678 alone (p = 0.2), indicating that
v
3 plays no significant role in spreading of HUVE cells on
TSP1. HUVE cell spreading on TSP1 and TSP1 peptide 678 was also
specifically inhibited by an
3
1-specific function-blocking antibody (Figure 5B; see also Figure 7B).
|
Microvascular (HDME) cell spreading on TSP1 was partially inhibited by
the function-blocking integrin antibodies specific for the
1
subunit (mAb13) or
3
1 integrin (P1B5; p = 0.02) and by TSP1 peptide 678 but not by the
4
1-blocking antibody P4C2 (p = 0.6) (Figure 4, C and D), verifying that spreading of these microvascular cells on TSP1 is also mediated by the
3
1
integrin. Inhibition of spreading on TSP1 by the
3
1-blocking antibody was specific, because it did not inhibit
spreading of the same cells on type I collagen (Figure 4C).
The
v
3 integrin did not contribute significantly to
spreading of microvascular cells on TSP1, because the antagonist
SB223245 did not inhibit spreading on TSP1 and did not increase the
inhibition when combined with the
3
1-blocking antibody (p = 0.6; Figure 4D). A function-blocking antibody recognizing the TSP1
receptor CD36 also did not block adhesion of HDME cells (Figure 4C). Of the human endothelial cells used, only HDME cells expressed CD36 as
measured by reverse transcription-PCR. Therefore, expression of CD36
is not required for endothelial cell spreading on TSP1. These data are
consistent with the previous report that HDME cell adhesion on TSP1 is
independent of CD36 and the
v
3 integrin (Chen et
al., 1996
). Heparin also had no effect on spreading of HDME cells
on a TSP1 substrate (our unpublished results). These results
demonstrate that the
3
1 integrin mediates spreading of
several types of endothelial cells on TSP1. The
v
3
integrin also plays a role in bovine endothelial cells, but the
human endothelial cells display some
3
1-independent spreading
activity for which no known TSP1 receptor could be assigned.
Disrupting VE-Cadherin Specifically Activates Endothelial Cell
3
1 Integrin
To further differentiate cell contact signals from signals that
may result from replating the cells, we used several agents to directly
perturb endothelial cell-cell contacts in a confluent monolayer.
VE-cadherin is a major mediator of cell-cell contact signaling in
endothelial cells (Dejana et al., 1999
). Pretreatment of a
confluent HUVE cell monolayer with a function-blocking VE-cadherin antibody (Hordijk et al., 1999
) produced a time-dependent
increase in spreading of the cells when subsequently plated on TSP1 but not when plated on the
2
1 integrin ligand type I collagen
(Figure 5A). Thus, blocking VE-cadherin function specifically induces
3
1 but not
2
1 integrin activity on endothelial
cells. After 3 h, the enhancement of spreading observed on TSP1
was 62% of the maximal response induced with the use of the
1
integrin-activating antibody TS2/16. The spreading stimulated
by treatment with the VE-cadherin antibody was verified to be mediated
by
3
1 integrin with the use of the function-blocking
antibody P1B5, which reversed the spreading induced in
anti-VE-cadherin-treated cells (Figure 5B).
Two other agents that disrupt endothelial cell contacts, histamine
(Andriopoulou et al., 1999
) and lipopolysaccharide
(Bannerman et al., 1998
), were less effective (Figure 5A).
Histamine disrupts endothelial cell contacts in part through disrupting
VE-cadherin (Andriopoulou et al., 1999
) and somewhat
stimulated spreading on TSP1 (p = 0.03). Lipopolysaccharide,
however, was inactive.
To confirm the specificity of the integrin response induced by
disrupting VE-cadherin, we also examined PECAM-1, another homotypic adhesion protein on endothelial cells that mediates cell-cell adhesion
but is not present in adherens junctions. PECAM-1 and VE-cadherin play
distinct roles as adhesion molecules to mediate signaling from
cell-cell contacts (Bach et al., 1998
; Halama et al., 1999
). We used a function-blocking PECAM-1 antibody, HEC7, to
examine the role of PECAM-1 in regulating
3
1 integrin
activity. Confluent HUVE cells treated for 1 or 3 h with this
antibody showed a decrease in spreading on TSP1 but no change in
spreading on type I collagen (Figure 5A). Thus, the suppression of
3
1 integrin activity in confluent endothelial cells can
be reversed by disrupting VE-cadherin- but not PECAM-1-mediated
endothelial cell interactions.
Although the maximal spreading response on TSP1 that could be induced
by the integrin-activating antibody TS2/16 was not increased by
depriving endothelial cells of cell-cell contact (Figure 3), we wanted
to verify that the increase in adhesion on TSP1 after replating was not
due to changes in
3
1 integrin expression. Analysis of
HUVE cell surface
3
1 expression by immunoprecipitation and
Western blotting demonstrated that surface expression of the integrin was similar in sparse and confluent cultures (Figure 6). Similar
3
1 integrin
expression in both cultures was verified by flow cytometry (our
unpublished results). Therefore, endothelial cells deprived of
cell-cell contact show increased
3
1 functional activity without
a corresponding increase in their expression of this integrin.
|
Surface expression of VE-cadherin was also similar in sparse and
confluent cells (Figure 6). No VE-cadherin could be detected in
3
1 integrin immunoprecipitated from either culture under mild conditions, suggesting that regulation of the activation of
3
1 is mediated by intracellular signaling rather than by a direct
association between these membrane proteins.
CD98 Ligation Stimulates
3
1 Integrin Recognition of
TSP1
Based on the localization of CD98 in endothelial cells spreading
on TSP1 (our unpublished results) and its ability to activate
1
integrins (Fenczik et al., 1997
; Chandrasekaran
et al., 1999
), we examined the effect of the CD98 antibody
4F2 on HUVE cell spreading on TSP1 (Figure
7A). The CD98 antibody enhanced spreading
on TSP1 and peptide 678 to a similar degree as the
1
integrin-activating antibody TS2/16. Stimulation of spreading
by both antibodies was specific in that spreading of the treated cells
on vitronectin, an
v
3 integrin ligand, was not affected
(Figure 7A). Spreading stimulated by the
1-activating antibody
remained
3
1 dependent, based on complete reversal by the
3
1-blocking antibody but not by an
2
1-blocking antibody
(Figure 7B).
|
TSP1 Modulates Endothelial Cell Proliferation through
3
1
Integrin
Interaction of the
3
1 integrin with its ligands can
regulate epithelial cell proliferation (Gonzales et al.,
1999
). Therefore, we examined the effect of the
3
1
integrin-binding sequence from TSP1 on endothelial cell
proliferation. Peptide 678 inhibited BAE cell proliferation in a
dose-dependent manner when added in solution (Figure
8A). Of two control peptides with amino
acid substitutions that diminish integrin binding (Krutzsch
et al., 1999
), peptide 686 (FQGVLQAVRFVF)
was inactive and peptide 690 inhibited proliferation of BAE cells by
only 19% at the highest dose tested (100 µM).
|
Previous publications have consistently reported that soluble TSP1
inhibits proliferation of endothelial cells (Bagavandoss and Wilks,
1990
; Taraboletti et al., 1990
; Sheibani and Frazier, 1995
;
Panetti et al., 1997
). In contrast, TSP1 immobilized on the
growth substrate stimulated dose-dependent proliferation of HUVE cells
(Figure 8B). Ligation of the
3
1 integrin was sufficient to stimulate this proliferative response, because immobilized
3
1
integrin antibody also stimulated proliferation (Figure 8B). In
this experiment, an
5
1 integrin antibody was used as a
positive control, because ligation of this integrin is known to
promote endothelial cell proliferation and survival. Stimulation of
proliferation by immobilized TSP1 was
3
1 dependent, based on
significant reversal of the growth stimulation in the presence of
either the function-blocking
3
1 antibody or TSP1 peptide 678 in
solution (Figure 8C). Specificity of the antibody inhibition was
verified by its lack of a significant effect on endothelial cell
proliferation stimulated by immobilized vitronectin (Figure 8C).
Consistent with the activity of the immobilized
3
1 antibody,
plating of HUVE cells on immobilized TSP1 peptide 678 increased their
proliferation (Figure 8D). However, adding the same peptide in solution
significantly inhibited HUVE cell proliferation (Figure 8D).
Similar enhancement of microvascular (HDME) cell proliferation was
observed after plating on immobilized TSP1 or TSP1 peptide 678 (Figure
9). As reported previously for several
types of endothelial cells, however, soluble TSP1 inhibited
proliferation of HDME cells stimulated by FGF2 (Figure 9). Therefore,
even microvascular endothelial cells that express the antiangiogenic
TSP1 receptor CD36 (Dawson et al., 1997
) can proliferate in
response to TSP1 when it is immobilized.
|
Inhibiting
3
1 Integrin Prevents Endothelial Wound
Repair
To examine the role of the
3
1 integrin-binding
sequence of TSP1 in endothelial cell motility, we determined the effect
of peptide 678 on endothelial scratch wound repair
(Figure 10). Cells were arrested with
the use of 5-fluorouracil to measure the effects on endothelial cell
motility in the absence of proliferation. Peptide 678 was a
dose-dependent inhibitor of BAE cell migration into the wound. At 30 µM, peptide 678 significantly inhibited endothelial cell migration
relative to the control (p = 0.016; two-tailed t test),
and this inhibition was specific in that the inactive analogue peptide
690 did not inhibit cell motility in this assay (p > 0.5).
Inhibition by peptide 678 was not significant at the lower
concentrations (p = 0.08 at 3 µM) but was consistently observed
in multiple experiments.
|
The
3
1-binding Sequence from TSP1 Inhibits Angiogenesis
The
3
1 integrin also contributes to angiogenesis in
vivo, because peptide 678 inhibited angiogenesis in the chick CAM assay (p < 0.005 at 20 µM; Figure
11). The dose dependence for inhibition (Figure 11A) was consistent with the reported
IC50 of this peptide for blocking
3
1
integrin-dependent adhesion (Krutzsch et al., 1999
)
and for inhibiting endothelial cell proliferation in vitro. Inhibition
of angiogenesis by TSP1 peptide 678 was specific in that substitution
of the essential Arg residue with Ala (peptide 690) abolished
inhibitory activity in the CAM assay (Figure 11A). The extent of
angiogenesis inhibition by peptide 678 was comparable to that for the
previously described inhibitor from the type 1 repeats, peptide 246, and for intact TSP1 (Figure 11B). In contrast to the type 1 repeat
peptide, however, which inhibited responses to FGF2 but not VEGF
(Iruela-Arispe et al., 1999
), the integrin-binding peptide 678 comparably inhibited angiogenesis stimulated by both growth
factors (Figure 11B).
|
The
3
1-binding Sequence Promotes Angiogenesis When Expressed
with the Heparin-binding Domain of TSP1
Because intact TSP1 contains at least two sequences that inhibit
angiogenesis (Tolsma et al., 1993
; Iruela-Arispe et
al., 1999
), we used recombinant fragments from the N-terminal
heparin-binding domain of TSP1 that lack these known inhibitory
sequences to examine the angiogenic activity of the
3
1
integrin-binding sequence. Addition of a recombinant
heparin-binding fragment (residues 1-174) that lacks the
3
1
integrin-binding sequence at residues 190-201 had no effect
on growth factor-stimulated angiogenic responses, but a longer
fragment (residues 1-242) that includes this integrin-binding sequence significantly augmented angiogenic responses stimulated by
FGF2 or a combination of FGF2 and VEGF (Figure 11B). A similar stimulation of angiogenesis, which was also specific for the longer TSP1 fragment, was observed in the absence of growth factors (Figure 11C). Thus, residues 175-242 of TSP1, which contain the
3
1
integrin-binding sequence, exhibit proangiogenic activity in
the CAM assay. Intact TSP1 did not significantly stimulate angiogenesis
in the absence of growth factors, presumably because of the presence of
the known inhibitory sequences. Peptide 678 was also inactive in this
assay, suggesting that the heparin-binding domain of the recombinant fragment plays a role by immobilizing the fragment.
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Although TSP1 is generally recognized as an inhibitor of
angiogenesis (Good et al., 1990
; Iruela-Arispe et
al., 1999
), conflicting reports about the effects of TSP1 on
endothelial cell adhesion, motility, and proliferation have precluded a
clear understanding of the mechanism for its antiangiogenic activity
(Good et al., 1990
; Taraboletti et al., 1990
;
Iruela Arispe et al., 1991
; BenEzra et al., 1993
;
Nicosia and Tuszynski, 1994
; Canfield and Schor, 1995
). Recognizing
that endothelial cells can modulate the expression or activation state
of specific TSP1 receptors that transduce opposing signals may lead to
a resolution of this conflict (Figure 12). We have demonstrated that
endothelial cells deprived of cell-cell contacts recognize an
3
1
integrin-binding sequence in TSP1 that stimulates their
spreading and proliferation when it is immobilized on a substratum.
However, addition of this TSP1 peptide in solution inhibits endothelial
cell spreading on TSP1, endothelial cell proliferation, and migration
in vitro and angiogenesis in vivo, presumably by inhibiting
interactions of this integrin with TSP1 or its other known
ligands. The activity of this integrin to recognize TSP1 is
suppressed in confluent endothelial cell monolayers. Loss of
endothelial cell-cell contact during wound repair in vitro or
angiogenesis in vivo, therefore, could activate this receptor and make
endothelial cells responsive to TSP1 signaling through the
3
1
integrin. Proangiogenic activity may also be induced by
proteolytic processing of TSP1, which rapidly releases heparin-binding fragments of TSP1 that contain the integrin-binding sequence
(Lawler and Slayter, 1981
). Heparan sulfate proteoglycan-mediated
immobilization of these fragments in the extracellular matrix may
account for the proangiogenic activity we observed in the CAM assay
with the use of this fragment.
|
We have identified two endothelial cell proteins, VE-cadherin and CD98,
that can regulate the activity of
3
1 integrin (Figure 12). CD98 is a general activator of
1 integrins (Fenczik
et al., 1997
), so it probably is not responsible for
selective activation of
3
1 integrin after loss of cell contact.
VE-cadherin is an endothelial adherens junction component that
modulates catenin and Shc signaling pathways (Dejana et al., 1999
). Antibody blocking demonstrated that disrupting VE-cadherin in
confluent endothelial cells is sufficient to activate
3
1 integrin. Therefore, signaling from ligated VE-cadherin may
maintain
3
1 integrin in an inactive state. The inactive
3
1 integrin in confluent endothelial cells is
concentrated at the cell-cell junctions (Yanez-Mo et al.,
1998
). This localization may augment the negative signal from
VE-cadherin that suppresses the activity of
3