Consequences of Loss of PINCH2 Expression in Mice
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Research Article 5899 Consequences of loss of PINCH2 expression in mice Fabio Stanchi1, Randi Bordoy1, Oliver Kudlaceck1, Attila Braun1, Alexander Pfeifer2, Markus Moser1 and Reinhard Fässler1,* 1Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Department of Molecular Medicine, 82152 Martinsried, Germany 2Department of Pharmacy, Center for Drug Research, University of Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany *Author for correspondence (e-mail: [email protected]) Accepted 12 September 2005 Journal of Cell Science 118, 5899-5910 Published by The Company of Biologists 2005 doi:10.1242/jcs.02686 Summary PINCH2 belongs, together with PINCH1, to a new family overlapping function in vivo. To further test this possibility, of focal adhesion proteins, the members of which are we established PINCH1-null mouse embryonic fibroblasts, composed of five LIM domains. PINCH1 and PINCH2 which express neither PINCH1 nor PINCH2. We found interact, through their first LIM domain, with the integrin- that in fibroblasts with a PINCH1/2-null background, linked kinase and thereby link integrins with several signal PINCH2 is able to rescue the spreading and adhesion transduction pathways. Despite their high similarity, it has defects of mutant fibroblasts to the same extent as PINCH1. been shown that PINCH1 and PINCH2 could exert distinct Furthermore, we show that the LIM1 domain only of either functions during cell spreading and cell survival. To PINCH1 or PINCH2 can prevent ILK degradation despite investigate the function of PINCH2 in vivo, we deleted their failure to localize to focal adhesions. Altogether these PINCH2 in mouse using the loxP/Cre system. In contrast results suggest that PINCH1 and PINCH2 share to the PINCH1-deficient mice, which die at the peri- overlapping functions and operate dependently and implantation stage, PINCH2-null mice are viable, fertile independently of their subcellular localization. and show no overt phenotype. Histological analysis of tissues that express high levels of PINCH2 such as bladder Supplementary material available online at and kidney revealed no apparent abnormalities, but http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/118/24/5899/DC1 showed a significant upregulation of PINCH1, suggesting that the two PINCH proteins may have, at least in part, Key words: PINCH (Lims), ILK, Integrin, Adhesion, Migration Introduction function in vivo came from studies on UNC-97, the Journal of Cell Science Integrins are heterodimeric transmembrane glycoproteins that Caenorhabditis elegans orthologue of PINCH (Hobert et al., mediate cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix adhesion 1999). Worms in which UNC-97 has been depleted by RNA (Hynes, 2002). They play pivotal roles in many biological interference arrest their development and show paralysis due processes including cell shape modulation, proliferation, to disrupted muscle attachment sites to the hypodermis. This survival and differentiation (van der Flier and Sonnenberg, phenotype resembles the defects observed in  integrin- and 2001). Integrins execute these functions by recruiting a large ILK-null worms (Gettner et al., 1995; Mackinnon et al., 2002). number of intracellular adaptor and signaling molecules to Similarly, Drosophila melanogaster lacking the PINCH gene their short cytoplasmic domain (Zamir and Geiger, 2001). They suffers from muscle malfunction and paralysis caused by link integrins with different signaling pathways and connect impaired integrin-dependent cytoskeletal attachment to the integrin adhesion sites to the actin cytoskeleton. Integrin- plasma membrane (Clark et al., 2003). associated molecules can also modulate integrin activation Vertebrates have two PINCH isoforms, PINCH1 and (affinity) and their clustering in focal adhesion sites (FAs; PINCH2 (Braun et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2002c). Both PINCH avidity). One FA protein is PINCH (also known as Lims), proteins share the same modular architecture and have high which is composed of five LIM domains followed by a short sequence similarity. The most noticeable difference between C-terminal tail containing putative nuclear localization/export the two PINCH proteins is the C-terminal tail, which is 11 signals. Each LIM domain is composed of two zinc-finger amino acids longer in PINCH2 than in PINCH1. In addition, motifs, which are able to engage in protein interactions the two PINCH genes share the same structure (Braun et al., (Kadrmas and Beckerle, 2004). The second zinc-finger of the 2003) suggesting that they have probably evolved by gene LIM1 domain of PINCH binds integrin-linked kinase (ILK) (Li duplication of a common ancestor, as have the members of et al., 1999). The LIM4 domain binds the adaptor protein many other vertebrate gene families (Gu et al., 2003). We NCK2, which interacts with several tyrosine kinase receptors previously compared the expression pattern of the two PINCH thereby linking integrins and growth factor signaling (Tu et al., genes during mouse development and in adult mouse tissues 1998). The LIM5 domain interacts with the Ras suppressor 1 (Braun et al., 2003). Interestingly, both in situ and northern blot (RSU1), which links PINCH to JNK signaling (Kadrmas et al., analysis indicated that only PINCH1 is expressed during early 2004; Dougherty et al., 2005). embryonic development, whereas PINCH2 expression is first The first evidence for an essential role of PINCH for integrin detectable in the second half of embryogenesis. Although in 5900 Journal of Cell Science 118 (24) adult tissues the PINCH1 and PINCH2 transcripts are detected selectively in the primitive endoderm of the implanting in almost all organs, the expression of the two isoforms can embryo (Li et al., 2005). diverge within different cell types of the same organ. For Whereas in vivo and in vitro studies provided insight into example, in colon PINCH2 expression is restricted to the the role of PINCH1, little is known about PINCH2. smooth muscle layer, whereas PINCH1 is also expressed in the Overexpression studies in HeLa cells revealed that PINCH2 epithelial layer (Braun et al., 2003). can compete with PINCH1 for ILK binding and hence alter the In order to analyze PINCH1 function in vivo we and others balance of PINCH1-ILK to PINCH2-ILK complexes (Zhang recently reported the phenotype of PINCH1-deficient mice, et al., 2002c). The appropriate balance seems to be essential which die shortly after implantation (Li et al., 2005; Liang et since re-expression of PINCH1 fully restored all the defects in al., 2005). Although loss of 1 integrin or ILK also leads to PINCH1 knock down cells, whereas expression of PINCH2 peri-implantation lethality (Fässler and Meyer, 1995; Stephens rescued ILK protein level, but not cell spreading and Akt et al., 1995; Sakai et al., 2003), PINCH1-null embryos survive phosphorylation (Fukuda et al., 2003; Xu et al., 2005). An significantly longer (Li et al., 2005). This prolonged additional functional difference between PINCH1 and development was confirmed in PINCH1-null embryoid bodies PINCH2 is the inability of PINCH2 to interact with the (EBs), which we generated from PINCH1-null ES cells. The PINCH1-binding protein RSU1 (Dougherty et al., 2005). All EB studies revealed that lack of PINCH1 permits these findings led to the proposal that PINCH2 may act as a differentiation of primitive endoderm and epiblast but their regulator of PINCH1 activity (Wu, 2004). adhesion to the basement membrane (BM), polarity, survival To investigate PINCH2 function in vivo, we generated and, surprisingly, cell-cell adhesion are severely compromised PINCH2 (Lims2 – Mouse Genome Informatics) knockout (Li et al., 2005). mice. To our surprise, these mice are viable, fertile and age In addition to our in vivo studies, many in vitro experiments normally. Tissues that normally express high levels of PINCH2 provided insight into the molecular functions of PINCH1. up-regulated PINCH1 expression. Complementation Overexpression of dominant negative PINCH1 protein or experiments with mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) that siRNA knock downs of PINCH1 in HeLa cells revealed an express neither PINCH1 nor PINCH2 revealed that PINCH2 is essential role in controlling cell spreading, adhesion and able to rescue their spreading and adhesion defects to the same migration (Fukuda et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2002a). extent as PINCH1. Interestingly, the subcellular localization of Furthermore, these studies revealed that the interaction of either PINCH isoforms is essential to restore spreading and PINCH1 and ILK is required for the localization of a ternary adhesion but is not essential to prevent ILK degradation. complex composed of PINCH1, ILK and ␣-parvin to integrin adhesion sites as well as for the stability of each component of the complex. Depletion of PINCH1 leads to downregulation of Materials and Methods ILK protein and, vice versa, depletion of ILK leads to ES cells culture and generation of PINCH2-null mice downregulation of PINCH1 through proteasome-mediated A 500 bp fragment from a PINCH2 EST clone (GeneBank accession protein degradation (Fukuda et al., 2003). These findings are number AI325875) was used to screen a PAC library. Several clones in agreement with our PINCH1-null EBs, which also showed were identified and used to generate a conditional targeting PINCH2 Journal of Cell Science reduced ILK protein levels (Li et al., 2005). The molecular construct (PINCH2fl). Briefly, the targeting vector consists of a 4 kb left arm followed by a single loxP site, a 1.6 kb genomic fragment mechanism of how these proteins can mutually prevent their