Janet Fawcett

Control of proteolysis: hormones, nutrients, and the changing role of the proteasome.

Purpose of reviewThe maintenance of protein balance is essential for the proper functioning of a cell. Protein degradation must be controlled to account for the availability of nutrients and hormone signals from the body as a whole. The proteasome is the major cytosolic protein degrading machinery, and is responsible for a considerable proportion of cellular protein degradation. It is thus a prime site for the integration of these various signals. We will examine some recent data regarding the mechanisms for control of the peptidolytic activities of the proteasome, and possible implications for signal transduction and integration. Recent findingsNutrients, such as amino acids and fatty acids, have been shown to have effects on proteasome-mediated protein degradation. The ubiquitinylating process is important for the control of protein degradation by the 26S proteasome. Amino acids and hormones control the expression of the necessary components, and can control protein degradation on a relatively longer-term basis. The 20S proteasome has been shown to be capable of degrading proteins without activating subunits. Furthermore, the 20S proteasome is allosterically affected by a number of smaller peptides, suggesting a more immediate mechanism for control. Amino acids and fatty acids have been shown to exert such control in vitro. SummaryAs more is learned about the functioning of the proteasome, the greater appreciation we have of its vital role in the control of cellular metabolism. Recent evidence shows that the proteasome is central to the integration of various nutrient and hormonal signals that the cell receives that may impact on protein metabolism.

Insulin and analogue effects on protein degradation in different cell types. Dissociation between binding and activity

In adult animals, the major effect of insulin on protein turnover is inhibition of protein degradation. Cellular protein degradation is under the control of multiple systems, including lysosomes, proteasomes, calpains, and giant protease. Insulin has been shown to alter proteasome activity in vitro andin vivo. We examined the inhibition of protein degradation by insulin and insulin analogues (LysB28,ProB29-insulin (LysPro), AspB10-insulin (B10), and GluB4,GlnB16,PheB17-insulin (EQF)) in H4, HepG2, and L6 cells. These effects were compared with receptor binding. Protein degradation was examined by release of trichloroacetic acid-soluble radioactivity from cells previously labeled with [3H]leucine. Short- and intermediate-lived proteins were examined. H4 cells bound insulin with an EC50 of 4.6 × 10−9 m. LysPro was similar. The affinity of B10 was increased 2-fold; that of EQF decreased 15-fold. Protein degradation inhibition in H4 cells was highly sensitive to insulin (EC50 = 4.2 × 10−11 and 1.6 × 10−10 m, short- and intermediate-lived protein degradation, respectively) and analogues. Despite similar binding, LysPro was 11- to 18-fold more potent than insulin at inhibiting protein degradation. Conversely, although EQF showed lower binding to H4 cells than insulin, its action was similar. The relative binding potencies of analogues in HepG2 cells were similar to those in H4 cells. Examination of protein degradation showed insulin, LysPro, and B10 were equivalent while EQF was less potent. L6 cells showed no difference in the binding of the analogues compared with insulin, but their effect on protein degradation was similar to that seen in HepG2 cells except B10 inhibited intermediate-lived protein degradation better than insulin. These studies illustrate the complexities of cellular protein degradation and the effects of insulin. The effect of insulin and analogues on protein degradation vary significantly in different cell types and with different experimental conditions. The differences seen in the action of the analogues cannot be attributed to binding differences. Post-receptor mechanisms, including intracellular processing and degradation, must be considered.

Insulin metabolism in human adipocytes from subcutaneous and visceral depots.

Subjects with the metabolic syndrome (insulin resistance, glucose intolerance, dyslipidemia, hypertension, etc.) have a relative increase in abdominal fat tissue compared to normal individuals and obesity has also been shown to be associated with a decrease in insulin clearance. The majority of the clearance of insulin is due to the action of insulin-degrading enzyme (IDE) and IDE is present throughout all tissues. Since abdominal fat is increased in obesity we hypothesized that IDE may be altered in the different fat depots. Adipocytes were isolated from fat samples obtained from subjects during elective abdominal surgery. Fat samples were taken from subcutaneous (SQ) and visceral (VIS) sites. Insulin metabolism was compared in adipocytes isolated from SQ and VIS fat tissue. Adipocytes from the VIS site degraded more insulin that those from SQ fat tissue. Inhibitors of cathepsins B and D has no effect on the degradation of insulin, while bacitracin, an inhibitor of IDE, inhibited degradation by approx. 33% in both SQ and VIS adipocytes. These data show that insulin metabolism is relatively greater in VIS than in SQ fat tissue and potentially due to IDE.

Retinoblastoma protein co-purifies with proteasomal insulin-degrading enzyme: implications for cell proliferation control.

Previous investigations on proteasomal preparations containing insulin-degrading enzyme (IDE; EC 3.4.24.56) have invariably yielded a co-purifying protein with a molecular weight of about 110kDa. We have now found both in MCF-7 breast cancer and HepG2 hepatoma cells that this associated molecule is the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor protein (RB). Interestingly, the amount of RB in this protein complex seemed to be lower in HepG2 vs. MCF-7 cells, indicating a higher (cytoplasmic) protein turnover in the former vs. the latter cells. Moreover, immunofluorescence showed increased nuclear localization of RB in HepG2 vs. MCF-7 cells. Beyond these subtle differences between these distinct tumor cell types, our present study more generally suggests an interplay between RB and IDE within the proteasome that may have important growth-regulatory consequences.