FASEB J. Thermo Fisher Scientific
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carlin, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Roth, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Carlin, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Roth, M.
(The FASEB Journal. 2005;19:195-202.)
© 2005 FASEB

Urokinase signal transduction and its role in cell migration

Stephen M. Carlin*, Therese J. Resink{dagger}, Michael Tamm* and Michael Roth*,{ddagger},1

* Pulmonary Cell Research, and
{dagger} Cardiovascular Research-Signal Transduction, Department of Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; and
{ddagger} The Woolcock Institute for Medical Research, Camperdown, Australia

1Correspondence: Pulmonary Cell Research, Department of Research, Basel University Hospital, Hebelstrasse 20, CH-4031 Basel, Switzerland. E-mail: michelr{at}med.usyd.edu.au


   ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Urokinase and its receptor uPAR play a role in cell migration that is being actively characterized. We previously reported that urokinase potentiates cell migration in human airway smooth muscle cells only where there is some primary migratory stimulus such as PDGF or recent exposure to growth medium. In this study, we examined the signaling of urokinase through its receptor, which lacks an intracellular domain and is presumed to act through associations with other membrane proteins. Whereas PDGF (30 min) and PDGF with urokinase increased the amount of the tyrosine dephosphorylase SHP2 in the membrane fraction, urokinase alone (30 min) decreased membrane SHP2. Analysis of the time course of urokinase stimulation showed that SHP2 was brought into association with the urokinase receptor uPAR between 2.5 and 20 min of urokinase, and later dissociated from it. Focal adhesion kinase was steadily lost from association with uPAR during urokinase stimulation, but its phosphorylation state increased and it became cleaved to smaller molecules. Association of uPAR with caveolin also decreased during urokinase stimulation. In contrast, the tyrosine kinase Src increased in the membrane fraction in response to urokinase stimulation. Disruption of raft structures by cyclodextrin treatment led to potentiation of PDGF chemotaxis, similar to urokinase action. Blocking of dephosphorylase activity with vanadate reduced basal cell migration and blocked the action of urokinase on PDGF chemotaxis. These observations support a role for urokinase in altering the phosphorylation state of focal adhesions, leading to breakdown of their structure and facilitation of cell motility.—Carlin, S. M., Resink, T. J., Tamm, M., Roth, M. Urokinase signal transduction and its role in cell migration.


Key Words: uPAR • signaling • FAK • SHP2 • cell migration


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
UROKINASE and its receptor uPAR control a promigratory signaling system in mammalian cells, and high expression of urokinase and uPAR is associated with invasiveness of tumors (1) . UPAR is a glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI) -anchored extracellular protein that lacks transmembrane and cytoplasmic domains, and its ability to transduce signals is presumed to be mediated through formation of signaling complexes with other transmembrane proteins such as the integrins (2) . These signaling complexes may be organized through selective inclusion within (or exclusion from) membrane domains. Classification of such domains remains contentious; terms such as membrane rafts and caveolae are used depending on the preferences of each research group. Lipid domains that contain uPAR and other GPI-anchored proteins are characterized by ordered lipids, a predominance of saturated acyl chains, enrichment of sphingolipids on the external membrane leaflet and of phosphatidyl ethanolamine on the internal membrane leaflet, and high cholesterol content within the membrane. Cholesterol is an important component of ordered lipid domains and is closely associated with caveolin. There may be a continuum of ordered lipid domains from caveolin-free rafts to the classic flask-shaped caveolae.

The high packing order of these domains tends to exclude most membrane proteins, which partition to more unsaturated and fluid membrane areas. Several paradigms for functional clustering of membrane proteins in lipid domains have been formulated, including clustering of immunoglobulin receptors for immune signaling, Ephrin-related signaling in cell guidance, and integrin-related signaling in cell adhesion. A general scheme is that ligand binding causes clustering of GPI-anchored receptor proteins, which then provide a favorable environment for other transmembrane proteins and on the inner cytoplasmic leaflet for palmitoylated proteins, such as Src family members.

Cell migration requires coordination of a suite of proteins that establish the physical link between the ECM and the cytoskeleton. These focal adhesions or focal contacts contain integrins as receptors of ECM proteins whereas actin chains are anchored on the cytoplasmic side through vinculin, paxillin, and talin (3) . Migrating cells must break down established areas of ECM attachment and reform them at the leading edge of the cell. Thus the change to a migrating phenotype involves loss of large focal adhesions and formation of numerous small and short-lived focal contacts (4) . A central molecule in coordination of adhesion stability is focal adhesion kinase (FAK).

Our previous results (5) showed that urokinase alone did not stimulate ERK in quiesced HASM cells and was unable to initiate cell migration. However, urokinase potentiated ERK activation in PDGF-stimulated cells and enhanced PDGF chemotaxis. This observation raised the question of how urokinase and uPAR signal and which signaling proteins would control and enhance chemokine-dependent cell migration. Here we show that urokinase and uPAR signal through alterations in the localization of membrane-associated phosphatases and kinases and that these effects are paralleled by changes in the membrane association and phosphorylation state of FAK.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Reagents and antibodies
Urokinase was from Calbiochem (San Diego, CA, USA) and PDGF-BB from R&D Systems (Abingdon, UK). Vanadate (Na3VO4) and methyl ß cyclodextrin were from Sigma (St. Louis, MO, USA). All other reagents were analytical or appropriate grade.

Antibodies for FAK (354-533), phospho-FAK (pY397), Grb2, and caveolin 1 were from BD (Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA). SHP2 and v-Src antibodies were from Sigma. Anti-G{alpha}s, anti-phosphotyrosine, and anti-uPAR were from Calbiochem, Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz, CA, USA), and American Diagnostica (Salamander Bay NSW, Australia), respectively.

Human airway smooth muscle (HASM) cell culture
Primary cultures of HASM cells were established as reported previously (6) . Briefly, macroscopically normal human lung tissue was obtained from patients undergoing partial resection. Large bronchi (5–15 mm internal diameter) were dissected from the surrounding parenchyma and the epithelial layer was removed. ASM bundles were dissected from the bronchi and placed in tissue flasks containing DMEM supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (10% FBS). The smooth muscle cells grew to confluence in a humidified CO2 incubator (37°C) in ~28 days and were passaged into 75 cm2 flasks at 7 day intervals. Pure populations of smooth muscle cells were confirmed by the presence of positive staining for {alpha}-smooth muscle actin.

Preparation of cell extracts
For membrane fractions and immunoprecipitation, cells were grown to confluence (6 days) in 10 cm diameter culture dishes, then quiesced for 24 h in 1% FBS. For whole-cell extracts, cells were grown under the same conditions in 6-well culture plates. After stimulation, dishes were immediately cooled on ice and rinsed twice with ice-cold PBS. For whole-cell extracts, 200 µL of 2 x electrophoresis sample buffer (1% SDS; 3.75% glycerol; 15.625 mM Tris-HCl, pH 6.8; 0.001% bromophenol blue, 100 mM DTT) was added directly to the wells, lysed cells were collected by scraping from the wells with the pipette tip, and the wells were washed with a further 200 µL of water. For membrane extraction, cells were scraped off with a cell scraper into 2 mL of extraction buffer (20 mM Tris pH 7.6, 1 mM EDTA, 150 mM NaCl, 1 mM PMSF, 5 µg/mL leupeptin, 5 µg/mL aprotinin). Cells were left to swell at 4°C for 10 min, then homogenized by repeated pipetting through a fine tip. Homogenates were cleared of cell debris by centrifugation at 2000 x g for 5 min. Supernatants were centrifuged at 18,000 x g for 60 min to sediment membrane particles (7) . The supernatant was kept as a cytosolic fraction and the pellet was washed with extraction buffer, then resuspended in 50 µL of membrane extraction buffer (containing 0.1% Triton X-100). Extracts were mixed on a turntable at 4°C for 1 h, and stored at –20°C.

Immunoprecipitation
For immunoprecipitation, cells were treated as for membrane extraction but extracted in buffer containing 0.1% Triton X-100. After homogenization and low-speed centrifugation to remove cell debris, supernatants were incubated with primary antibodies (anti-uPAR or anti-SHP2) for 2 h on a turntable at 4°C. Protein G agarose was then added and mixing continued for another hour. Agarose was sedimented by centrifugation, the supernatant was removed, and immunoprecipitated complexes were washed 3x in 10 bed volumes of PBS. The agarose was then extracted in 1 bed volume of electrophoresis sample buffer, which was removed and stored at –20°C.

Electrophoresis and Western blots
Extracts were mixed with an equal volume of electrophoresis sample buffer, boiled for 5 min, then subjected to standard SDS PAGE and electrotransfer onto PVDF membranes. Protein loading equivalence was routinely verified after electrotransfer to PVDF membranes by staining with Ponceau S and immunoblotting for G{alpha}s subunit in the case of membrane and whole-cell lysate samples. 12.5% gels were used for small proteins (10–40 kDa), 10% gels for mid-range (40–80 kDa), and 7.5% gels for larger proteins (80–150 kDa). For immunoblotting, PVDF membranes were blocked overnight in 5% skim milk powder solution and incubated with primary and secondary antibodies according to the suppliers’ recommendations. Specific staining was detected by HRP-catalyzed chemiluminescence and exposure of photographic film.

Migration assay
Cells from passages 4–7 were seeded into 6-well plates at a density of 6 x 104 cells/cm2 in 10% FBS and allowed to settle overnight. For the next 24 h cells were quiesced in DMEM containing 1% FBS. Cell culture membrane inserts with 8 µm pore size in 24-well plate format (Falcon, Oxnard, CA, USA) were collagen coated by incubation with collagen solution (0.1 mg/mL collagen type 1 in DMEM diluted from 1 mg/mL stock in 0.1 M acetic acid) for 1 h. Coated inserts were air dried for 1 h, then washed with DMEM containing 0.1% BSA. Cells were lifted with minimal trypsinization for the chemotaxis assay (terminated with 10% FBS), resuspended in DMEM containing 0.1% BSA, and added to the upper compartment of the transwells at 2 x 104 cells/mL. Migration assays were carried out in 1 mL DMEM containing 0.1% BSA. Cells were left to settle for 30 min in a CO2 incubator before treatments were added to the top or bottom compartments. At the end of the assay (4 h), membranes were fixed in ice-cold methanol. The upper membrane surface was scraped clean of cells and cells that migrated through to the membrane underside were stained with hematoxylin. Membranes were then mounted on slides and the cells were manually counted as the number of nuclei in a standard central field.

Statistical analysis
All experiments were performed on at least three independent occasions. Results are given as mean ± SD. Statistical significance was evaluated using Student’s paired t test; a P value of <0.05 was considered significant.


   RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Localization of SHP2
SHP2 is an important mediator of cell adhesion and migration that is functionally active in lipid rafts (8) , membrane domains where uPAR is located. For this reason, we tested whether SHP2 localization in HASM cells was affected by migratory stimuli. SHP2 partitioned differentially in the membrane fraction depending on the type of stimulus (Fig. 1A ). PDGF stimulation for 30 min increased the amount of membrane-associated SHP2 3-fold above unstimulated levels (P<0.05, n=6); costimulation with PDGF and urokinase had a similar effect, with no further significant increase compared with PDGF alone. In contrast, stimulation with urokinase alone significantly decreased membrane-associated SHP2 to ~0.7-fold that of unstimulated levels (P<0.05, n=6).



View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. Urokinase-induced localization of SHP2. Quiescent HASM cells were stimulated with 10 nM urokinase, 20 ng/mL PDGFBB, or both for 30 min (A) or for the times indicated (B). Western blots were made from membrane fractions (A), uPAR-immunuprecipitates (B), and SHP2 immunoprecipitates (C). PDGF and PDGF with urokinase increased SHP2 in the membrane fraction at 30 min; urokinase alone decreased SHP2 (A; also showing that G{alpha}s, serving as internal loading control, remained constant). Urokinase increased SHP2 association with uPAR for 20 min, then SHP2 dissociated from uPAR (B). Expression of total cell SHP2 and uPAR expression (D; also with blot for internal control G{alpha}s). Error bars show mean ± SD, n = 6; *P at least <0.05 indicates significant difference from unstimulated control.

To test whether uPAR was acting through physical association with SHP2, whole-cell extracts were immunoprecipitated with anti-uPAR antibody after stimulation of HASM cells with urokinase for up to 40 min. Protein staining of extracts resolved on 10% SDS gels showed a number of proteins in the immunoprecipitates; Western blots of the immunoprecipitates showed that SHP2 associates with uPAR differentially during a time course of 40 min of urokinase exposure (Fig. 1B ). SHP2 coprecipitated with uPAR in unstimulated cells, but stimulation with urokinase caused a rapid (significant within 2.5 min) increase in SHP2. After 20 min, the amount of uPAR-associated SHP2 decreased, reaching 60% of control levels by 40 min. We tested the association of uPAR with SHP2 by converse immunoprecipitation with SHP2 antibody and found uPAR in Western blots, although the amount of associated uPAR did not vary during urokinase stimulation (Fig. 1C ). Total cell uPAR and SHP2 levels did not alter significantly over the same period (Fig. 1D ).

Membrane fractions
We extended the protein analysis to membrane fractions from urokinase-stimulated HASM cells. In Western blots of membrane fractions, FAK bands appeared at two molecular weights: a whole FAK at ~120 kDa and a smaller band at ~85 kDa. 120 kDa FAK was readily detectable in whole-cell extracts and the cytoplasmic fraction of cell extracts (not shown), which indicates that the membrane-associated FAK represents only a fraction of total cellular FAK. In contrast, the 85 kDa FAK band was undetectable in whole-cell or cytoplasm fractions, and so appeared to be unique to the membrane fraction, where it constituted a major fraction of FAK. However, the relative proportion of the 85 kDa FAK was variable between individual cell cultures. The 120 kDa band decreased in the membrane fraction in response to urokinase whereas the smaller band increased (Fig. 2 A).



View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 2. Localization of FAK in response to urokinase and PDGF stimulus. HASM cells were incubated with 10 nM urokinase (time course) or 20 ng/mL PDGF (10 min). Membrane fractions were analyzed by immunoblotting for FAK (A) and phospho-FAK (B). The image of Ponceau stain and immunoblot for G{alpha}s verify equivalence of loading. Association of FAK with the membrane fraction (A, n=4) decreased with urokinase exposure time whereas phosphorylation of FAK (p-FAK) increased (B, n=3). Expression of 120 kDa phosphorylated FAK in the whole-cell lysate (C, representative blot; n=4). Data are means ± SD; *P< 0.05, significantly different from control.

The phosphorylation status of FAK in membranes was determined using anti-phospho FAK antibodies that recognize Tyr 397, which is contained in 120 and 85 kDa proteins (19) . In response to urokinase, the proportion of phosphorylated FAK significantly increased to ~3-fold in the whole 120 kDa protein (Fig. 2B ). Although we noted that the phosphorylation state of the smaller 85 kDa protein decreased marginally within the first 20 min and increased thereafter (Fig. 2B ), these differences were not significant. Changes in phosphorylation status of whole FAK (120 kDa) were readily detectable in whole-cell lysates whereby urokinase induced a 3-fold increase (Fig. 2C ). Using anti-pY397, we were unable to detect 85 kDa in whole-cell lysates, as was the case using anti-FAK antibodies.

Depletion of cholesterol by preincubation of cells with cyclodextrin increased the level of FAK phosphorylation in the cell membrane fraction either with or without subsequent urokinase incubation (Fig. 3 ). Inhibition of phosphatase activity with vanadate increased phosphorylation of FAK.



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 3. Phosphorylation of membrane FAK after treatment with urokinase, cyclodextrin, and vanadate. Cells were preincubated (10 mM, 30 min) with cyclodextrin (cd), preincubated with cyclodextrin then treated (10 nM, 10 min) with urokinase (cd+uPA), or treated (25 µM, 10 min) with vanadate (V), then membranes were isolated. Cyclodextrin alone and in combination with urokinase caused phosphorylation of FAK, whereas vanadate caused a smaller increase in P-FAK formation. Data are means ± SD, n = 3; *P < 0.05, significantly different from control. Levels of G{alpha}s (loading control) in control and treated cells were not different (data not shown).

Effects of cyclodextrin and vanadate on cell migration
We used two interventions to assess the importance of membrane rafts and SHP2 in urokinase signaling. Cyclodextrin treatment (10 mM, 30 min) depletes membrane cholesterol and disturbs raft formation (9) . We found that cyclodextrin had no effect on basal (unstimulated) cell migration but significantly potentiated chemotaxis toward PDGF (P<0.05, n=3) (Fig. 4 ). Costimulation with urokinase and PDGF did not further increase chemotaxis. Vanadate, which blocks the dephosphorylase action of SHP2, significantly reduced cell migration toward PDGF both with and without urokinase (P<0.05, n=3). Vanadate removed the potentiation of PDGF chemotaxis by urokinase (Fig. 4) .



View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 4. Effect of cyclodextrin and vanadate on cell migration. Cells were added to migration chambers and allowed to migrate for 4 h in the presence of 20 ng/mL PDGF, PDGF together with 10 nM urokinase, and with or without preincubation with cyclodextrin (10 mM, 30 min) or vanadate (25 µM, 10 min). Cyclodextrin potentiated chemotaxis toward PDGF (control b vs. cyclodextrin b), whereas vanadate inhibited PDGF chemotaxis and removed potentiation by urokinase. Data are means ± SD, n = 3; *P < 0.05 compared with control b, **P < 0.05 compared with control c.

Other associated proteins
Further Western blot analysis of the anti-uPAR immunoprecipitates from whole-cell extracts was performed to determine whether other proteins implicated in focal adhesion signaling were physically linked to uPAR. Caveolin 1 was detected in anti-uPAR immunoprecipitates, and its association with uPAR decreased with the time of urokinase exposure (Fig. 5 A). Levels of total cell caveolin did not change throughout the 40 min time course of urokinase exposure. Detection of Src in these immunoprecipitates was not possible due to the presence of bands at the same molecular mass (~55 kDa) from the immunoprecipitate antibodies. Although Src was not measurable in immunoprecipitates for technical reasons, it was readily detectable in membrane fractions, where it accumulated ~6-fold in response to urokinase stimulation (Fig. 5B ). Urokinase-stimulated accumulation of Src in the membrane fraction was completely blocked after blockade of phosphatase activity by preincubation with vanadate. Levels of whole-cell Src did not change with urokinase stimulation (Fig. 5D ).



View larger version (43K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 5. Localization of caveolin, Src and Grb2. Cells were treated with urokinase (10 nM, 0–40 min), PDGF (20 ng/mL, 10 min), or pretreated with vanadate (25 µM, 10 min) followed by urokinase (10 nM, 20 min) treatment (V). Western blots for caveolin 1 (A), Src (B), and Grb2 (C) were made from uPAR immunoprecipitates (A) or membrane fractions (B, C, G{alpha}s loading controls shown). Urokinase stimulation reduced the association of caveolin with uPAR (A, n=3), increased the amount of Src in the membrane fraction (B, n=5), but we found no significant change of Grb2 in the membrane fraction (C, n=3). Preincubation with vanadate before urokinase stimulation blocked accumulation of Src in the membrane fraction (B, n=3). Data are means ± SD; *P< 0.05, significant difference from untreated control. Treatment with urokinase had no significant effect on expression of total cellular Grb2 or Src (D, representative blots; n=3).

We tested for the presence of the adaptor protein Grb2, which has been implicated in signaling of tyrosine-phosphorylated proteins (10) and SHP2 (11) . We were unable to detect Grb2 in anti-uPAR immunoprecipitates. Grb2 was readily detectable in membrane fractions, but found no significant change during incubation with urokinase or PDGF (Fig. 5C ). Levels of whole-cell Grb2 did not change (Fig. 5D ).


   DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
We previously demonstrated that urokinase does not generate primary migration signals in HASM cells. Urokinase per se neither initiated cell migration nor activated p42/p44 MAP kinase (5) . Urokinase did, however, potentiate cell migration and MAP kinase activation when PDGF, a primary migratory stimulus, was present. These observations were consistent with a role for urokinase in reorganizing signal transduction molecules to facilitate migration. Although numerous reports have described signal transduction somewhat downstream from uPAR, the more proximal signaling intermediates are less well characterized. The present study provides direct evidence for the reorganization of signal transduction molecules; the urokinase signaling we observed is consistent with a model of functional clusters of proteins on the plasma membrane.

Cells attach to a protein matrix via integrins, which become clustered and connected to the actin cytoskeleton through focal adhesions (reviewed by Giancotti and Rouslahti, refs 12 , 13 ). Signaling and linking proteins in these adhesion complexes then generate intracellular signals that "read" the ECM, the starting state for HASM cells in our experiments. In airway smooth muscle cells, the ECM provides a strong survival signal (14) ; the local composition of the ECM seems to control cell response, as cells plated onto collagen have low levels of spontaneous migration. Focal adhesions (or contacts) are central to cell migration as they must be newly formed at the advancing edge of the cell and disassembled in the trailing part. uPAR has been shown to associate with focal adhesions by colocalization studies (15) and by coimmunoprecipitation with ß1-integrins (16) . This association was shown to be functional (16) through expression of various deletion forms of the proteins. Various schemes for the composition of focal adhesions have been proposed, but a general one, as envisaged by Frame et al. (3) , involves FAK as a central module that physically links the cytoskeleton to the ECM via paxillin and talin (internal) and integrins (external). The ECM protein fibronectin can be a promigratory stimulus in some cell types (17 , 18) ; when HEK293 cells attach to a fibronectin matrix, they respond with phosphorylation of FAK and Src.

In this study we found that urokinase stimulation of HASM cells affected FAK by changing its localization, phosphorylation, and breakdown. Urokinase stimulation caused a progressive loss from the membrane fraction with a concomitant increase in FAK phosphorylation, and appearance of an ~85 kDa fragment. The antibodies we used to detect FAK and phospho-FAK recognize the same FAK region—residues 354-533 and tyrosine 397, respectively, which are in the central kinase region on the N-terminal side. Similar-sized cleavage products of FAK have been described and attributed to the actions of several proteases. Gervais et al. (19) described cleavage of FAK after apoptotic stimuli and found several cleavage sites, including one at VSWD704 that is preferentially cleaved by caspase 6 and generates an 85 kDa N-terminal fragment. Other authors have described an ~85 kDa FAK fragment produced by caspase 3 (20 , 21) . A suite of smaller fragments has been described in apoptosis of renal epithelial cells (22) . FAK can also be cleaved by calpain (23 , 24) ; using an inducible form of the constitutively active vSrc, it was shown that Src activity causes calpain cleavage of FAK accompanied by focal adhesion disassembly. Our observations are consistent with phosphorylation of FAK by Src and subsequent cleavage by a protease. Urokinase stimulation caused a 6-fold increase of Src in the membrane fraction. FAK has motifs for attachment to the integrin part of focal contacts at its N-end and cytoskeletal attachments at its C-end, so cleavage between the two ends of the molecule may provide a mechanism for releasing focal adhesions from the cytoskeleton.

uPAR is reported to interact physically and functionally with integrins (16 , 25 26 27) , but how this may contribute to further signaling has not been established. As integrins and uPAR lack intracellular receptors in the formal sense, it seems that signaling must take place through alteration of protein associations within the focal adhesion/contact. The phosphotyrosine phosphatase SHP2 (28) is often implicated in cell migration; in IGF-stimulated cell migration, for instance, IGF promotes association of a FAK-paxillin-SHP2 complex that results in dephosphorylation of FAK and paxillin (29) . Miao et al. (30) found a similar mechanism after ephrin stimulation, leading to weakening of focal adhesions. Chernock et al. (31) found that overexpression of SHP2 increased chemotaxis whereas a nonfunctional SHP2 caused reduced chemotaxis (29) . In our study we found that urokinase stimulation rapidly brought SHP2 into association with uPAR, then (>20 min) saw SHP2 disassociate. That SHP2 was involved in general chemotaxis was confirmed by our observation that it was also brought to the membrane fraction by PDGF stimulation. At the functional level, when we blocked the dephosphorylase activity of SHP2 with vanadate, cell migration toward PDGF was inhibited in both the presence and absence of urokinase and the potentiating action of urokinase on PDGF chemotaxis was completely removed. The tyrosine kinase Src was involved in urokinase signaling in our cells, where it increased 6-fold in the membrane fraction. The functional association of Src with uPAR and FAK has been reported in a cancer cell line (25) , and Src and FAK act in concert in signaling for cell migration (32) .

Lipid rafts appear to be the location of many of the proteins involved in cell adhesion and migration. When SHP2 was modified to be targeted to raft domains of HEK293 cells, it became constitutively activated and caused phosphorylation of FAK (7) . Wei et al. described a membrane complex of caveolin, cholesterol, Src, ß1 integrins, FAK, and uPAR (27) . In their scheme, uPAR associates with and stabilizes the complexes, whereas uPAR binding peptides disrupt the complexes and inhibit cell-ECM adhesion (16) . Src is reported to interact directly with caveolin by phosphorylating it (33) . Our results support a model (Fig. 6 ) where uPAR associates with caveolin, SHP2, FAK, and Src in membrane domains that can be isolated by immunoprecipitation and disrupted by cholesterol depletion. Stimulation with urokinase causes increased association of SHP2 and Src and increased phosphorylation of FAK, which in turn brings about proteolysis of FAK and breakdown of the membrane domains. Urokinase causes uPAR to disassociate from caveolin. Disruption of the domains by cholesterol stripping prevented urokinase signaling as assessed by Src accumulation and loss of its ability to potentiate chemotaxis toward PDGF.



View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 6. Hypothetical model of urokinase action on focal adhesion arrangement. In quiescent cells, uPAR is located unclustered in caveolin-rich membrane rafts in association with FAK. Urokinase binds to its receptor and causes recruitment of SHP2. SHP2 activates Src by dephosphorylation and allows it to be recruited to signaling complexes. FAK is phosphorylated by Src, targeting it for removal from the membrane possibly by cleavage into its N-terminal end, which remains associated with integrins at the membrane, and its C-terminal, which binds to the cytoskeleton. The net effect of urokinase is to remove FAK from the membrane (and focal adhesions) and thus free the cell for migration when a chemotactic signal is present.

In conclusion, our results support a model of urokinase action in which it promotes cell migration and chemotaxis by breaking down focal adhesion contacts. This explains its functional role in chemotaxis in HASM cells of facilitating cell migration without itself providing a primary migratory stimulus.

Received for publication March 25, 2004. Accepted for publication August 5, 2004.


   REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 

  1. Andreasen, P. A., Egelund, R., Petersen, H. H. (2000) The plasminogen activation system in tumor growth, invasion, and metastasis. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 57,25-40(Review)[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Ossowski, L., Ghiso, J. A., Liu, D., Yu, W., Kovalski, K. (1999) The role of plasminogen activator receptor in cancer invasion and dormancy. Medicina 59,547-552
  3. Frame, M. C., Fincham, V. J., Carragher, N. O., Wyke, J. A. (2002) v-Src’s hold over actin and cell adhesions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 3,233-245[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Parsons, J. T., Martin, K. H., Slack, J. K., Taylor, J. M., Weed, S. A. (2000) Focal adhesion kinase: a regulator of focal adhesion dynamics and cell movement. Oncogene 19,5606-5613[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Carlin, S. M., Roth, M., Black, J. L. (2003) Urokinase potentiates PDGF-induced chemotaxis of human airway smooth muscle cells. Am. J. Physiol. 284,L1020-L1026
  6. Johnson, P. R., Armour, C. L., Carey, D., Black, J. L. (1995) Heparin and PGE2 inhibit DNA synthesis in human airway smooth muscle cells in culture. Am. J. Physiol. 269,L514-L519
  7. EL, L., Perdue, J. F. (1980) An airfuge centrifugation procedure for the measurement of ligand binding to membrane-associated and detergent-solubilized plasma membrane receptors. J. Biochem. Biophys. Methods 3,207-217[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Lacalle, R.-A., Mira, E., Gomez-Mouton, C., Jimenez-Baranda, S., Martinez-A, C., Manes, S. (2002) Specific SHP-2 partitioning in raft domains triggers integrin-mediated signaling via Rho activation. J. Cell Biol. 157,277-289[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Parpal, S., Karlsson, M., Thorn, H., Stralfors, P. (2001) Cholesterol depletion disrupts caveolae and insulin receptor signaling for metabolic control via insulin receptor substrate-1, but not for mitogen-activated protein kinase control. J. Biol. Chem. 276,9670-9678[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Downward, J. (1994) The GRB2/Sem-5 adaptor protein. FEBS Lett. 338,113-117[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Bennett, A. M., Tang, T. L., Sugimoto, S., Walsh, C. T., Neel, B. G. (1994) Protein-tyrosine-phosphatase SHPTP2 couples platelet-derived growth factor receptor beta to Ras. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91,7335-7339[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Giancotti, F. G., Ruoslahti, E. (1999) Integrin signaling. Science 285,1028-1032[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Giancotti, F. G. (2000) Complexity and specificity of integrin signalling. Nat. Cell Biol. 2,E13-E14[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Freyer, A. M., Johnson, S. R., Hall, I. P. (2001) Effects of growth factors and extracellular matrix on survival of human airway smooth muscle cells. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 25,569-576[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Pollanen, J., Hedman, K., Nielsen, L. S., Dano, K., Vaheri, A. (1988) Ultrastructural localization of plasma membrane-associated urokinase-type plasminogen activator at focal contacts. J. Cell Biol. 106,87-95[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Wei, Y., Lukashev, M., Simon, D. I., Bodary, S. C., Rosenberg, S., Doyle, M. V., Chapman, H. A. (1996) Regulation of integrin function by the urokinase receptor. Science 273,1551-1555[Abstract]
  17. Kohyama, T., Ertl, R. F., Valenti, V., Spurzem, J., Kawamoto, M., Nakamura, Y., Veys, T., Allegra, L., Romberger, D., Rennard, S. I. (2001) Prostaglandin E-2 inhibits fibroblast chemotaxis. Am. J. Physiol. 281,L1257-L1263
  18. Klingbeil, C. K., Hauck, C. R., Hsia, D. A., Jones, K. C., Reider, S. R., Schlaepfer, D. D. (2001) Targeting Pyk2 to beta 1-integrin-containing focal contacts rescues fibronectin-stimulated signaling and haptotactic motility defects of focal adhesion kinase-null cells. J. Cell Biol. 152,97-110[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Gervais, F. G., Thornberry, N. A., Ruffolo, S. C., Nicholson, D. W., Roy, S. (1998) Caspases cleave focal adhesion kinase during apoptosis to generate a FRNK-like polypeptide. J. Biol. Chem. 273,17102-17108[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Grossmann, J., Artinger, M., Grasso, A. W., Kung, H. J., Scholmerich, J., Fiocchi, C., Levine, A. D. (2001) Hierarchical cleavage of focal adhesion kinase by caspases alters signal transduction during apoptosis of intestinal epithelial cells. Gastroenterology 120,79-88[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Mao, H., Li, F., Ruchalski, K., Mosser, D. D., Schwartz, J. H., Wang, Y., Borkan, S. C. (2003) hsp72 inhibits focal adhesion kinase degradation in ATP-depleted renal epithelial cells. J. Biol. Chem. 278,18214-18220[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. van de Water, B., Nagelkerke, J. F., Stevens, J. L. (1999) Dephosphorylation of focal adhesion kinase (FAK) and loss of focal contacts precede caspase-mediated cleavage of FAK during apoptosis in renal epithelial cells. J. Biol. Chem. 274,13328-13337[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Carragher, N. O., Fincham, V. J., Riley, D., Frame, M. C. (2001) Cleavage of focal adhesion kinase by different proteases during SRC-regulated transformation and apoptosis. Distinct roles for calpain and caspases. J. Biol. Chem. 276,4270-4275[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Carragher, N. O., Westhoff, M. A., Riley, D., Potter, D. A., Dutt, P., Elce, J. S., Greer, P. A., Frame, M. C. (2002) v-Src-induced modulation of the calpain-calpastatin proteolytic system regulates transformation. Mol. Cell. Biol. 22,257-269[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Aguirre Ghiso, J. A. (2002) Inhibition of FAK signaling activated by urokinase receptor induces dormancy in human carcinoma cells in vivo. Oncogene 21,2513-2524[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Nguyen, D. H. D., Webb, D. J., Catling, A. D., Song, Q., Dhakephalkar, A., Weber, M. J., Ravichandran, K. S., Gonias, S. L. (2000) Urokinase-type plasminogen activator stimulates the Ras/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK)signaling pathway and MCF-7 cell migration by a mechanism that requires focal adhesion kinase, Src, and Shc. J. Biol. Chem. 275,19382-1[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Wei, Y., Yang, X., Liu, Q., Wilkins, J. A., Chapman, H. A. (1999) A role for caveolin and the urokinase receptor in integrin-mediated adhesion and signaling. J. Cell Biol. 144,1285-1294[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Vogel, W., Lammers, R., Huang, J., Ullrich, A. (1993) Activation of a phosphotyrosine phosphatase by tyrosine phosphorylation. Science 259,1611-1614[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Manes, S., Mira, E., Gomez-Mouton, C., Zhao, Z. J., Lacalle, R. A., Martinez, A. C. (1999) Concerted activity of tyrosine phosphatase SHP-2 and focal adhesion kinase in regulation of cell motility. Mol. Cell. Biol. 19,3125-3135[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Miao, H., Burnett, E., Kinch, M., Simon, E., Wang, B. (2000) Activation of EphA2 kinase suppresses integrin function and causes focal-adhesion-kinase dephosphorylation. Nat. Cell Biol. 2,62-69[CrossRef][Medline]
  31. Chernock, R. D., Cherla, R. P., Ganju, R. K. (2001) SHP2 and cbl participate in alpha-chemokine receptor CXCR4-mediated signaling pathways. Blood 97,608-615[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Slack, J. K., Adams, R. B., Rovin, J. D., Bissonette, E. A., Stoker, C. E., Parsons, J. T. (2001) Alterations in the focal adhesion kinase/Src signal transduction pathway correlate with increased migratory capacity of prostate carcinoma cells. Oncogene 20,1152-1163[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Lee, H., Woodman, S. E., Engelman, J. A., Volonte, D., Galbiati, F., Kaufman, H. L., Lublin, D. M., Lisanti, M. P. (2001) Palmitoylation of caveolin-1 at a single site (Cys-156) controls its coupling to the c-Src tyrosine kinase: targeting of dually acylated molecules (GPI-linked, transmembrane, or cytoplasmic) to caveolae effectively uncouples c-Src and caveolin-1 (TYR-14). J. Biol. Chem. 276,35150-35158[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Proc Am Thorac SocHome page
W. T. Gerthoffer
Migration of Airway Smooth Muscle Cells
Proceedings of the ATS, January 1, 2008; 5(1): 97 - 105.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
S. C. Bryer and T. J. Koh
The urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor is not required for skeletal muscle inflammation or regeneration
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, September 1, 2007; 293(3): R1152 - R1158.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol.Home page
S. Shetty, T. Velusamy, S. Idell, H. Tang, and P. K. Shetty
Regulation of urokinase receptor expression by protein tyrosine phosphatases
Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol, February 1, 2007; 292(2): L414 - L421.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Pathol.Home page
F. Maquerlot, S. Galiacy, M. Malo, C. Guignabert, D. A. Lawrence, M.-P. d'Ortho, and G. Barlovatz-Meimon
Dual Role for Plasminogen Activator Inhibitor Type 1 as Soluble and as Matricellular Regulator of Epithelial Alveolar Cell Wound Healing
Am. J. Pathol., November 1, 2006; 169(5): 1624 - 1632.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cardiovasc ResHome page
C. D. Hardin and J. Vallejo
Caveolins in vascular smooth muscle: Form organizing function
Cardiovasc Res, March 1, 2006; 69(4): 808 - 815.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Biol. Chem.Home page
S. M. Pulukuri, C. S. Gondi, S. S. Lakka, A. Jutla, N. Estes, M. Gujrati, and J. S. Rao
RNA Interference-directed Knockdown of Urokinase Plasminogen Activator and Urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor Inhibits Prostate Cancer Cell Invasion, Survival, and Tumorigenicity in Vivo
J. Biol. Chem., October 28, 2005; 280(43): 36529 - 36540.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carlin, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Roth, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Carlin, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Roth, M.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS