![[Feedback]](/icons/banner/feedbackACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[For Subscribers]](/icons/banner/subscriberACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Archive]](/icons/banner/archiveACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Search]](/icons/banner/searchACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Contents]](/icons/banner/tocACT.gif){kind=icon}
|
|
|
|
|
||
Vol. 19, Issue 4, 1627-1636, April 2008
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111
Submitted September 21, 2007;
Revised January 17, 2008;
Accepted January 30, 2008
Monitoring Editor: Mark Ginsberg
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
; Brinkman et al., 2000); HEF1/Cas-L/NEDD9 (Kumar et al., 1992; Law et al., 1996; Minegishi et al., 1996), and Efs/Sin (Ishino et al., 1995; Alexandropoulos and Baltimore, 1996). Elevated expression of p130Cas/BCAR1 has been linked to poor prognosis in breast cancer (van der Flier et al., 2000), whereas overexpression of HEF1/NEDD9/Cas-L recently been found to potently induce metastatic melanoma (Kim et al., 2006). Mechanistically, the best-studied functions of the Cas family proteins include regulation of attachment-dependent survival signaling or anoikis and regulation of cell motility and invasion, although there is evidence for additional roles for some of these proteins in control of cell cycle, growth factor signaling, cell differentiation, and bacterial and viral infection (reviewed in Defilippi et al., 2006; Singh et al., 2007). These many functions reflect the ability of the Cas proteins to interact with multiple partner proteins, as the predominant structural feature of Cas proteins is their possession of numerous protein interaction domains (discussed in O'Neill et al., 2000), allowing them to act as scaffolding proteins for different functional complexes.
An important current issue in understanding cancer pathogenesis is that of why different oncogenes and tumor suppressors are selectively targeted in tumors arising from different tissue sources. For example, although elevation of HEF1/Cas-L/NEDD9 induces metastasis in melanomas, reduced levels of the same gene have been reported in breast cancers that metastasize aggressively to the lung (Minn et al., 2005; see also O'Neill et al., 2007 for discussion). Undoubtedly, the differing physiology and complement of expressed genes in differing precursor cell types imposes distinct requirements for the type of genetic or epigenetic change required to make a cell cancerous. For protein families, another relevant issue is likely to be that for a given cell type, the expression of one family member may condition the impact of modulating the expression of a paralogous family member with overlapping biological activities. The complexity of cellular signaling networks currently emerging through systems-level analysis (Mak et al., 2007) emphasizes the importance of exactly defining the composition, expression, and functional properties of protein family groups.
In this study, we have identified a previously unreported but evolutionarily conserved member of the Cas group, which we have termed HEPL (HEF1-Efs-p130Cas-like). We show that the HEPL mRNA and protein are expressed in cultured cell lines and tumors, and that HEPL has biological activities similar to those of other family members in influencing cell attachment and movement. The identification of HEPL provides an important context for further studies of this increasingly important protein group.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
). The rat p130Cas structure (PDB code 1Z23 (Briknarova et al., 2005) was used to model the four-helix bundle region. Homology modeling was initiated using a multiple-round PSI-BLAST (Altschul et al., 1997) sequence search using HEPL and p130Cas sequences to build profiles. The profiles were used to identify suitable templates in the Protein Data Bank (PDB; Berman et al., 2000). The profile/template match was refined using secondary structure predictions from PSIPRED (Jones, 1999). Conserved backbone and side chain residues were copied from the template structure, whereas divergent residues were rebuilt using SCWRL3 (Canutescu et al., 2003). LOOPY (Xiang et al., 2002) was used to build loops at points of insertion and deletion. Molecular graphics and 3D structural manipulation was performed using Chimera (Pettersen et al., 2004). The Cas multiple sequence alignment was overlaid with secondary structure prediction rendered by MolIDE (Canutescu and Dunbrack, 2005).
Quantitative Real-Time PCR Assays
Total RNA was isolated using an RNeasy kit (Qiagen, Chatsworth, CA). Contaminating DNA was removed using TURBO DNA-free (Ambion, Austin, TX). RNA was quantified using the Agilent 2100 BioAnalyzer (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA) in combination with a RNA 6000 Nano LabChip (Agilent Technologies). See Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 for technical details of PCR assays. Ambion's First Choice human total RNA survey panel was used as a source of RNA from 20 different normal tissues.
HEPL Plasmids and Small Interfering RNA and Cell Culture
HEPL was cloned using conventional molecular biology techniques by combining sequences from Human MGC verified full-length cDNA (Clone 5205865, Open Biosystems, Huntsville, AL) and human genomic DNA. Hemagglutinin (HA)-epitope tagged HEF1, HEPL, FAK, and negative controls (empty vector or 
BioB, an extensively truncated Escherichia coli BioB) were expressed from pcDNA3.1-6HA for transfections. Cell lines were cultured under standard conditions, in DMEM or in RPMI-1640 plus 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) supplemented with antibiotics, as specified by the ATCC (Manassas, VA). Scrambled (control) small interfering (siRNA) and siRNA duplexes against HEPL (NM_020356
[GenBank]
) and HEF1 were made by Dharmacon Research (Lafayette, CO). HEPL-directed siRNAs were used both as a Smartpool and four individual deconvoluted sequences, as described in Results. Plasmid transfections were done using LipofectAMINE-Plus reagent (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and siRNA transfections using the Cell Line Nucleofector Kit V from Amaxa Biosystems (Gaithersburg, MD).
Antibodies and Immunoprecipitation
Rabbit polyclonal antibody to HEPL was generated using a peptide corresponding to HEPL amino acids 773-786 (by Zymed Laboratories, San Francisco, CA). Antibody was purified from sera using the NAb Protein A Spin Purification Kit (Pierce Biotechnology, Rockford, IL). Other antibodies included anti-HA mAb (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA), anti-paxillin and anti-p130Cas (BD Transduction Laboratories, Carlsbad, CA), anti-HEF1 (2G9; Pugacheva and Golemis, 2005), anti-FAK[pY397] (Biosource, Nevelle, Belgium), anti-gelsolin (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA), Alexa Fluor 488– and 568–conjugated anti-mouse (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR), and anti-mouse and anti-rabbit IgG antibodies conjugated to HRP (Amersham Biotech, Buckinghamshire, England). For immunoprecipitations, transfected cells were lysed in M-PER Mammalian Protein Extraction Reagent (Pierce Biotechnology) and immunoprecipitated with either anti-HA or anti-HEPL Abs, using Immobilized Protein A/G Agarose (Pierce Biotechnology). To establish HEPL and FAK interaction, HA-epitope tagged HEF1, HEPL, FAK, and negative control ( BioB, an extensively truncated E. coli BioB) were expressed from pcDNA3.1-6HA for transfections in 293T cells and immunoprecipitated with anti-FAK mAb, clone 4.47 (Millipore, Bedford, MA).
To study cell adhesion–dependent tyrosine phosphorylation, trypsinized HOP-62 cells were either maintained in suspension in serum-free medium for 45 min at 37°C or subsequently were replated on fibronectin (4 µg/cm2; Chemicon International, Temecula, CA)-coated dishes for 30 min. Experiments were performed in parallel in the presence or absence of 10 µM PP2 (Calbiochem, San Diego, CA). Cell lysates were prepared using M-PER Mammalian Protein Extraction Reagent supplemented with protease inhibitors and Halt Phosphatase Inhibitor Cocktail (Pierce Biotechnology), immunoprecipitated with antibodies to HEPL or HEF1, and immunoblotted with anti-phosphotyrosine mAb (BD Transduction Laboratories).
Yeast Two-Hybrid Analysis
The modified Interaction Trap form of two-hybrid system was used to study HEPL protein interactions, using reagents and approaches as described in (Serebriiskii et al., 2002). The LexA-fused HEPL SH3 domain (aa 1-148) was used to assess interactions with B42 activation domain-fused FAK C-terminus (aa 688-997). LexA fused to the SHC PTB domain and to a B42-BioB, and B42-fused Raf and B42-BioB were used as nonspecific negative controls. Expression of all protein fusions was analyzed by Western blot.
Immunofluorescence, Cell Spreading, Cell Migration, Cell Size, Cell Cycle, and Apoptosis Assays
Cells were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde for 10 min, permeabilized in 0.2% Triton X-100 for 5 min and blocked with 3% BSA in PBS. After incubation with primary antibodies, cells were stained with either Alexa Fluor 488– or 568–conjugated secondary antibodies. Epifluorescence microscopy was performed using an inverted Nikon TE300 microscope (Melville, NY). Confocal microscopy was performed using a Radiance 2000 laser scanning confocal microscope (Carl Zeiss, Thornwood, NY). All images were acquired as 12-bit images with a Spot RT monochrome camera (Diagnostic Instruments, Sterling Heights, MI). For cell spreading analysis, cells were transfected with indicated plasmids or siRNAs for 18–48 h before fixation, as indicated. Anti-paxillin mAb was used to mark focal adhesions and outline cells. Cell area measurements were made using MetaMorph or MetaVue software (Molecular Devices, Universal Imaging, Downingtown, PA) software to score pixels within cell perimeters.
To measure motility, movement of siRNA-treated HOP62 cells plated in six-well tissue culture dishes was monitored with a Nikon TE300 microscope using 10x NA 0.25 PlanA objective, and images were collected with CCD video camera (Roper Scientific, Trenton, NJ) at 20-min intervals over a 12-h period and then digitized and stored as image stacks using MetaMorph software. Velocity and persistence of migratory directionality (D/T) were determined by tracking the positions of cell nuclei using the Track Point function of MetaMorph.
Apoptosis was measured using an APOPercentage apoptosis assay kit (Biocolor, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom) and Western blot to measure appearance of cleaved gelsolin. Cell cycle compartmentalization was measured using a Guava Personal Cell Analysis (PCA) System (Guava Technologies, Hayward, CA). Treatment for 48 h with 200 µM etoposide (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) or 10 nM dasatinib (a gift of Dr. Andrew Godwin) was used as positive control for apoptosis assays. All calculations of statistical significance were made using the GraphPad InStat software package (San Diego, CA) and STATA software (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Approaches included unpaired t tests, ANOVA analysis, and generalized linear models estimated using generalized estimating equations (GEE).
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
), and a well-conserved carboxy-terminal domain that contributes to focal adhesion targeting (Nakamoto et al., 1997; Harte et al., 2000; O'Neill and Golemis, 2001; Figure 1C). Although the HEPL proteins maintain a recognizable SH3 domain, this domain has the lowest overall similarity to other SH3 domains in the Cas group. Human HEPL has a limited number of candidate SH2-binding sites, in contrast to p130Cas and HEF1. The HEPL carboxy-terminus has a short region of detectable Cas family homology (res 
670 to the carboxy-terminus), but otherwise lacks obvious similarity at the level of primary sequence. Flanking the carboxy-terminal domain, HEPL also lacks a YDYVHL sequence conserved among the other three Cas family proteins (bold, Supplementary Figure 1) that is an important binding site for the Src SH2 domain (Tachibana et al., 1997), possibly suggesting reduced functionality.
To better assess whether the predicted HEPL proteins maintain important features of the Cas family, we used molecular modeling to compare the Cas proteins based on predicted secondary and tertiary structure, using structures of p130Cas as templates (Briknarova et al., 2005; Wisniewska et al., 2005). Figure 2A demonstrates that HEPL and p130Cas are predicted to fold almost identically within the SH3 domain. Further, despite only 28% primary sequence identity, the predicted secondary structure for residues 432-591 of HEPL is extremely similar to that for residues 449-610 for p130Cas, implying a well-conserved fold (Figure 2B). At present, no adequate template exists in PDB to create a tertiary model for the Cas carboxy-terminus. However, comparison of the predicted secondary structure for the four Cas proteins reveals a strikingly similar periodicity of 
-helices and β-sheets (Figure 2C) that is again compatible with the idea of a conserved tertiary structure.
|
) that estimate the relative abundance of mRNAs based on their frequency of isolation in sequencing of tissue-specific libraries (results not shown). We next used quantitative RT-PCR to analyze mRNAs prepared from a panel of commonly used laboratory cell lines derived from diverse cell lineages (but enriched in carcinomas and leukemias, in accord with the expression prediction), to establish the general abundance of HEPL mRNA in cultured cells.
|
To analyze HEPL at the protein level, we cloned the gene and prepared antibody against HEPL-derived peptide sequences that specifically recognized overexpressed epitope-tagged HEPL (Figure 3D). Using this antibody, we have found that HOP-62, K562, and SR, cell lines predicted by mRNA analysis to contain relatively abundant levels of HEPL, contained a protein species of 105 kDa, whereas lower levels of a similarly migrating species are detected in a number of other cell lines (Figure 3E). This species was removed by treatment of cells with an siRNA targeted to HEPL (Figure 3F). Together, these data indicate that HEPL is a bona fide new member of the Cas family. Based on our analysis to date, antibodies to the more widely studied Cas family members p130Cas and HEF1 do not cross-react with HEPL (Figure 3G), suggesting the presence of HEPL may mask phenotypes associated with depletion of other family members.
HEPL Conserves Cas Family Functions in FAK Regulation and Cell Spreading
The best-defined action of Cas family proteins is as intermediates in integrin-dependent attachment signaling, regulating cell attachment, spreading, and migration. Although antibody to endogenous HEPL worked poorly in immunofluorescence analysis, HA-HEPL transfected into MCF7 cells (which express a low level of HEPL mRNA) colocalized with paxillin at focal adhesions (Figure 4A), comparable to other Cas proteins. HA-HEPL–transfected cells spread to a greater degree than control or vector-transfected cells, but to a lesser degree than cells transfected with HA-HEF1 (Figure 4B). Also suggesting a less potent action for HA-HEPL than HA-HEF1, levels of Y397-phosphorylated (activated) FAK were strongly increased at focal adhesions in HA-HEF1 cells. Interestingly, in HA-HEPL transfected cells, only a subpopulation of the cells (15–20%) showed increased levels of Y397-phosphorylated FAK, whereas the remainder of the population remained at the levels of the negative control cells (Figure 4C).
|
; Law et al., 1996) and suggested that overexpressed HEPL activates FAK based on direct interaction. Finally, like HEF1, full-length HEPL was immunoprecipitated with antibody to FAK from cells transfected with plasmids expressing each protein (Figure 4E). A common characteristic of Cas family proteins is their phosphorylation by Src family kinases during the cell attachment process, which provides a docking site for FAK and contributes to assembly of signaling complexes at focal adhesions (O'Neill et al., 2000). HEPL lacks the YDYVHL site that coordinates docking with the Src SH2 domain for other family members (Tachibana et al., 1997). Nevertheless, attachment-induced Src phosphorylation of HEPL was observed (Figure 4F), suggesting that additional interactions between HEPL, FAK, and Src are sufficient to drive this modification.
We next analyzed focal adhesions and cell spreading in HOP-62 cells from which HEPL had been depleted by siRNA (Figure 5A). In the total population of siRNA transfected cells, HEPL depletion reduced cell spreading (p < 0.01), although to a significantly smaller degree than HEF1 depletion (p < 0.001). On closer inspection, the HEPL-depleted population differed from both scrambled siRNA control- and HEF1-depleted cells in its heterogeneous nature. A subpopulation of 20% of HEPL-depleted cells showed reduced and/or differentially localized staining for Y397-phosphorylated FAK (Figure 5B), with residual staining diffusely distributed at the cell periphery rather than in discrete focal adhesions. Subsequent staining with antibody to paxillin (Figure 5C) revealed a similar population of 20% of cells that had greatly reduced paxillin staining. Reanalyzing spreading data for strongly versus weakly Y397-FAK staining HEPL-depleted cells (Figure 5A) revealed a clear segregation of weak staining with reduced spreading. By contrast, almost all cells with depleted HEF1 were less spread than Scr control cells and had reduced Y397-phosphorylated FAK, to the same degree as the 20% of responsive HEPL-depleted cells.
|
; van Seventer et al., 2001; Fashena et al., 2002). Analysis of live cell images of HEPL- or HEF1-depleted cells indicated that depletion distorted migration profiles relative to Scr-depleted controls. HEF1 depletion uniformly reduced cellular velocity (p < 0.001, Figure 5D). Interestingly, the phenotype observed with HEPL depletion was more complex. Two distinct HEPL-depleting siRNAs caused appearance of a population of slow-moving cells, although for one of the siRNAs the effect was not statistically significant (velocity <9 µm/h, p < 0.05 and p = 0.15). However, the HEPL-depleting siRNAs each also unexpectedly caused appearance of a faster-moving (velocity <18 µm/h) group of cells, corresponding to 15% of the population (p < 0.05 and p < 0.02). Greater velocity has been reported to be associated with greater cell spreading in some cell types with manipulated Cas proteins (e.g., Fashena et al., 2002) for HEF1 in MCF7 cells), although there are examples of cell movement where a connection between spreading and velocity is not observed (Friedl and Wolf, 2003). No "highly spread" population was detected with HEPL-depleted cells (results not shown). As further difference from the Cas group, whereas depletion of HEF1 reduced directionality of movement of cells, no such effect was seen with HEPL depletion (Figure 5E).
Some members of the Cas family, such as HEF1, also play important roles in regulation of apoptosis and proliferation (e.g., Law et al., 2000; O'Neill and Golemis, 2001; Pugacheva and Golemis, 2005; Dadke et al., 2006). siRNA depletion of HEPL from K562 cells led to a slightly slower accumulation of cells over 3 days (Figure 5F), although the general compartmentalization of cells in the G1, S, and G2/M phases of cell cycle was not significantly affected (Figure 5G). HEPL depletion did not influence the level of apoptotic cells in the population (Figure 5. H and I). As siRNA depletion rarely exceeds 90–95%, a definitive determination that HEPL does not affect cell cycle or apoptosis requires a gene knockout; however, at present, the most demonstrable activity of HEPL is at focal adhesions, as with p130Cas.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
HEPL does not appear to be as biologically active as HEF1, based on a number of criteria presented above. Particularly in control of FAK activation, only a minority of cells respond either to overexpressed HEPL or to depleted HEPL, under conditions where almost all cells respond to similarly manipulated HEF1. siRNA depletion typically introduces siRNA into >90% of cells, and our analysis of HEPL siRNA-transfected cells confirmed >75% depletion in practice, excluding the trivial explanation of incomplete depletion. Rather, we expect the difference may relate to cell-specific variability in the intrinsic expression level of the additional Cas family members within HOP-62 cells: single cell analyses are beginning to demonstrate that this is an important property governing average gene expression in cell populations (e.g., Levsky and Singer, 2003; Mar et al., 2006). We propose that typically within cells expressing multiple Cas family members, HEPL may make a minor contribution to regulation of cell growth properties. Part of the reduced biological activity of HEPL may arise from lack of a key motif for Src recognition (YDYVHL; Tachibana et al., 1997). We have shown that HEPL is still phosphorylated by Src family kinases during cell attachment, suggesting this motif is not essential for an interaction with Src, presumably because of the presence of multiple interaction interfaces joining HEPL, FAK, and Src; however, Cas proteins also reciprocally contribute to Src activation in the attachment process (e.g., Alexandropoulos and Baltimore, 1996), and this function may be limited.
Intriguingly, HEPL activity qualitatively differs from other Cas proteins in at least one important way, in the regulation of migration. Although loss or depletion of p130Cas and HEF1 reduces cell migration (e.g., Natarajan et al., 2006), HEPL depletion induced faster migration in at least a subset of cells. The reason for this is so far unknown; however, an intriguing possibility is that through possession of some but not all Cas family functions, HEPL may weakly oppose the action of other Cas family proteins via action as a "dominant negative." Particularly in a cell background low in other Cas proteins, HEPL may be important. Hence, it is important for experiments involving knockdown or knockout of Cas family proteins to subsequently consider HEPL status in interpreting phenotypes. Separately, for each of the Cas proteins, some interacting partners have been described unique to that family member; the interaction profile of HEPL has not yet been explored, but may include novel interactors and intracellular roles.
Intriguingly, the region of chromosome 20 encompassing HEPL is included as an amplicon in many solid tumors (Dessen et al., 2002). It is hence possible that as with p130Cas and HEF1 (Singh et al., 2007), altered expression of HEPL contributes to the pathogenesis of cancers or other diseases. Our data demonstrate that HEPL overexpression is sufficient to increase cell spreading and FAK activation, phenotypes associated with increased tumor invasiveness. Based on its expression profile, in nontransformed cells HEPL may be most relevant to the normal function of the hematopoietic system and the lung. As all the Cas proteins have the potential to interact with multiple partner proteins, sometimes in large complexes, the presence of additional family members might also be expected to induce cell- and tissue–type differences in complex assembly and stoichiometry. Clearly, future studies of the Cas group should consider the possible role of redundant HEPL function in evaluating knockdown, knockout, or overexpression phenotypes. In sum, this study suggests ample new ground for further investigation.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Address correspondence to: Erica Golemis (EA_Golemis{at}fccc.edu)
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Altschul, S. F., Madden, T. L., Schaffer, A. A., Zhang, J., Zhang, Z., Miller, W., and Lipman, D. J. (1997). Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 25, 3389–3402.
Berman, H. M., Westbrook, J., Feng, Z., Gilliland, G., Bhat, T. N., Weissig, H., Shindyalov, I. N., and Bourne, P. E. (2000). The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28, 235–242.
Briknarova, K., Nasertorabi, F., Havert, M. L., Eggleston, E., Hoyt, D. W., Li, C., Olson, A. J., Vuori, K., and Ely, K. R. (2005). The serine-rich domain from Crk-associated substrate (p130Cas) is a four-helix bundle. J. Biol. Chem 280, 21908–21914.
Brinkman, A., van Der Flier, S., Kok, E. M., and Dorssers, L. C. (2000). BCAR1, a human homologue of the adapter protein p130Cas, and antiestrogen resistance in breast cancer cells. J. Natl. Cancer Inst 92, 112–120.
Canutescu, A. A., and Dunbrack, R. L., Jr. (2005). MolIDE (Molecular Integrated Development Environment): a homology modeling framework you can click with. Bioinformatics 21, 2914–2916.
Canutescu, A. A., Shelenkov, A. A., and Dunbrack, R. L., Jr. (2003). A graph-theory algorithm for rapid protein side-chain prediction. Protein Sci 12, 2001–2014.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dadke, D., Jarnik, M., Pugacheva, E. N., Singh, M. K., and Golemis, E. A. (2006). Deregulation of HEF1 impairs M-phase progression by disrupting the RhoA activation cycle. Mol. Biol. Cell 17, 1204–1217.
Defilippi, P., Di Stefano, P., and Cabodi, S. (2006). p130Cas: a versatile scaffold in signaling networks. Trends Cell Biol 16, 257–263.[CrossRef][Medline]
Fashena, S. J., Einarson, M. B., O'Neill, G. M., Patriotis, C. P., and Golemis, E. A. (2002). Dissection of HEF1-dependent functions in motility and transcriptional regulation. J. Cell Sci 115, 99–111.
Friedl, P., and Wolf, K. (2003). Tumour-cell invasion and migration: diversity and escape mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Cancer 3, 362–374.[CrossRef][Medline]
Harte, M. T., Macklem, M., Weidow, C. L., Parsons, J. T., and Bouton, A. H. (2000). Identification of two focal adhesion targeting sequences in the adapter molecule p130(Cas). Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1499, 34–48.[Medline]
Ishino, M., Ohba, T., Sasaki, H., and Sasaki, T. (1995). Molecular cloning of a cDNA encoding a phosphoprotein, Efs, which contains a Src homology 3 domain and associates with Fyn. Oncogene 11, 2331–2338.[Medline]
Jones, D. T. (1999). Protein secondary structure prediction based on position-specific scoring matrices. J. Mol. Biol 292, 195–202.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kim, M. et al. (2006). Comparative oncogenomics identifies NEDD9 as a melanoma metastasis gene. Cell 125, 1269–1281.[CrossRef][Medline]
Klemke, R. L., Leng, J., Molander, R., Brooks, P. C., Vuori, K., and Cheresh, D. A. (1998). CAS/Crk coupling serves as a "molecular switch" for induction of cell migration. J. Cell Biol 140, 961–972.
Kumar, S., Tomooka, Y., and Noda, M. (1992). Identification of a set of genes with developmentally down-regulated expression in the mouse brain. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun 185, 1155–1161.[CrossRef][Medline]
Law, S. F., Estojak, J., Wang, B., Mysliwiec, T., Kruh, G. D., and Golemis, E. A. (1996). Human Enhancer of Filamentation 1 (HEF1), a novel p130Cas-like docking protein, associates with FAK, and induces pseudohyphal growth in yeast. Mol. Cell. Biol 16, 3327–3337.
Law, S. F., O'Neill, G. M., Fashena, S. J., Einarson, M. B., and Golemis, E. A. (2000). The docking protein HEF1 is an apoptotic mediator at focal adhesion sites. Mol. Cell. Biol 20, 5184–5195.
Levsky, J. M., and Singer, R. H. (2003). Gene expression and the myth of the average cell. Trends Cell Biol 13, 4–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
Mak, H. C., Daly, M., Gruebel, B., and Ideker, T. (2007). CellCircuits: a database of protein network models. Nucleic Acids Res 35, D538–D545.
Mar, J. C., Rubio, R., and Quackenbush, J. (2006). Inferring steady state single-cell gene expression distributions from analysis of mesoscopic samples. Genome Biol 7, R119.1–R119.12.
Minegishi, M., Tachibana, K., Sato, T., Iwata, S., Nojima, Y., and Morimoto, C. (1996). Structure and function of Cas-L, a 105-kD Crk-associated substrate-related protein that is involved in beta-1 integrin-mediated signaling in lymphocytes. J. Exp. Med 184, 1365–1375.
Minn, A. J., Gupta, G. P., Siegel, P. M., Bos, P. D., Shu, W., Giri, D. D., Viale, A., Olshen, A. B., Gerald, W. L., and Massague, J. (2005). Genes that mediate breast cancer metastasis to lung. Nature 436, 518–524.[CrossRef][Medline]
Nakamoto, T., Sakai, R., Honda, H., Ogawa, S., Ueno, H., Suzuki, T., Aizawa, S.-I., Yazaki, Y., and Hirai, H. (1997). Requirements for localization of p130Cas to focal adhesions. Mol. Cell. Biol 17, 3884–3897.
Natarajan, M., Stewart, J. E., Golemis, E. A., Pugacheva, E. N., Alexandropoulos, K., Cox, B. D., Wang, W., Grammer, J. R., and Gladson, C. L. (2006). HEF1 is a necessary and specific downstream effector of FAK that promotes the migration of glioblastoma cells. Oncogene 25, 1721–1732.[CrossRef][Medline]
O'Neill, G. M., Fashena, S. J., and Golemis, E. A. (2000). Integrin signaling: a new Cas(t) of characters enters the stage. Trends Cell Biol 10, 111–119.[CrossRef][Medline]
O'Neill, G. M., and Golemis, E. A. (2001). Proteolysis of the docking protein HEF1 and implications for focal adhesion dynamics. Mol. Cell. Biol 21, 5094–5108.
O'Neill, G. M., Seo, S., Serebriiskii, I. G., Lessin, S. R., and Golemis, E. A. (2007). A new central scaffold for metastasis: parsing HEF1/Cas-L/NEDD9. Cancer Res 67, 8975–8979.
Pettersen, E. F., Goddard, T. D., Huang, C. C., Couch, G. S., Greenblatt, D. M., Meng, E. C., and Ferrin, T. E. (2004). UCSF Chimera—a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J. Comput. Chem 25, 1605–1612.[CrossRef][Medline]
Polte, T. R., and Hanks, S. K. (1995). Interaction between focal adhesion kinase and Crk-associated tyrosine kinase substrate p130Cas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92, 10678–10682.
Pugacheva, E. N., and Golemis, E. A. (2005). The focal adhesion scaffolding protein HEF1 regulates activation of the Aurora-A and Nek2 kinases at the centrosome. Nat. Cell Biol 7, 937–946.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sakai, R., Iwamatsu, A., Hirano, N., Ogawa, S., Tanaka, T., Mano, H., Yazaki, Y., and Hirai, H. (1994). A novel signaling molecule, p130, forms stable complexes in vivo with v-Crk and v-Src in a tyrosine phosphorylation-dependent manner. EMBO J 13, 3748–3756.[Medline]
Serebriiskii, I. G., Mitina, O., Pugacheva, E., Benevolenskaya, E., Kotova, E., Toby, G. G., Khazak, V., Kaelin, W. G., Chernoff, J., and Golemis, E. A. (2002). Detection of peptides, proteins, and drugs that selectively interact with protein targets. Genome Res 12, 1785–1791.
Singh, M., Cowell, L., Seo, S., O'Neill, G., and Golemis, E. (2007). Molecular basis for HEF1/NEDD9/Cas-L action as a multifunctional co-ordinator of invasion, apoptosis and cell cycle. Cell Biochem. Biophys 48, 54–72.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tachibana, K., Urano, T., Fujita, H., Ohashi, Y., Kamiguchi, K., Iwata, S., Hirai, H., and Morimoto, C. (1997). Tyrosine phosphorylation of crk-associated substrates by focal adhesion kinase. A putative mechanism for the integrin-mediated tyrosine phosphorylation of crk-associated substrates. J. Biol. Chem 272, 29083–29090.
van der Flier, S., Brinkman, A., Look, M. P., Kok, E. M., Meijer-Van Gelder, M. E., Klijn, J. G., Dorssers, L. C., and Foekens, J. A. (2000). Bcar1/p130Cas protein and primary breast cancer: prognosis and response to tamoxifen treatment. J. Natl. Cancer Inst 92, 120–127.
van Seventer, G. A., Salman, H. J., Law, S. F., O'Neill, G. M., Mullen, M. M., Franz, A. A., Kanner, S. B., Golemis, E. A., and van Seventer, J. M. (2001). Focal adhesion kinase regulates beta1 integrin dependent migration through an HEF1 effector pathway. Eur. J. Immunol 31, 1417–1427.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wheeler, D. L. et al. (2004). Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information: update. Nucleic Acids Res 32, D35–40.
Wisniewska, M., Bossenmaier, B., Georges, G., Hesse, F., Dangl, M., Kunkele, K. P., Ioannidis, I., Huber, R., and Engh, R. A. (2005). The 1.1 A resolution crystal structure of the p130cas SH3 domain and ramifications for ligand selectivity. J. Mol. Biol 347, 1005–1014.[CrossRef][Medline]
Xiang, Z., Soto, C. S., and Honig, B. (2002). Evaluating conformational free energies: the colony energy and its application to the problem of loop prediction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 7432–7437.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. Izumchenko, M. K. Singh, O. V. Plotnikova, N. Tikhmyanova, J. L. Little, I. G. Serebriiskii, S. Seo, M. Kurokawa, B. L. Egleston, A. Klein-Szanto, et al. NEDD9 Promotes Oncogenic Signaling in Mammary Tumor Development Cancer Res., September 15, 2009; 69(18): 7198 - 7206. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. D. Tang p130 Crk-Associated Substrate (CAS) in Vascular Smooth Muscle Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, June 1, 2009; 14(2): 89 - 98. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
35 indicate little or no gene expression. (C) Detection of HEPL and other Cas transcripts in nontransformed, immortalized, and transformed ovarian cell lines and tumors; data prepared as in B. (D) HA-HEPL or HA-fused to a negative control protein (Materials and Methods) were transfected into 293T cells, and whole cell lysates (WCL) were used directly for Western analysis with antibodies to HEPL or actin (as loading control) or for immunoprecipitation (IP) with antibody to HA before Western analysis with anti-HEPL. HEPL doublet seen preferentially in WCL over IP likely reflects a population of mixed HA-HEPL and HEPL with HA cleaved because of proteolysis. (E) Antibody to HEPL was used to probe immunoprecipitates from cell lysates as indicated; WCL of 293T cells transfected with HA-HEPL is a sizing control. (F) IPs of K562 or HOP-62 cells transfected with siRNA to HEPL (siHEPL) or control scrambled (Scr) siRNA were probed with antibody to HEPL; WCL from 293T expressing HA-HEPL provides a sizing control in each case. (G) Western blots of 293 cells expressing HA-HEPL (HP), -HEF1 (H1), -p130Cas (p130), or -negative control (–), sequentially probed with antibodies indicated.
