Lene Melsæther Grøvdal

Differential Effects of EGFR Ligands on Endocytic Sorting of the Receptor

Endocytic downregulation is a pivotal mechanism turning off signalling from the EGF receptor (EGFR). It is well established that whereas EGF binding leads to lysosomal degradation of EGFR, transforming growth factor (TGF)‐α causes receptor recycling. TGF‐α therefore leads to continuous signalling and is a more potent mitogen than EGF. In addition to EGF and TGF‐α, five EGFR ligands have been identified. Although many of these ligands are upregulated in cancers, very little is known about their effect on EGFR trafficking.

Endocytic downregulation of ErbB receptors: mechanisms and relevance in cancer

ErbB receptors (EGFR (ErbB1), ErbB2, ErbB3, and ErbB4) are important regulators of normal growth and differentiation, and they are involved in the pathogenesis of cancer. Following ligand binding and receptor activation, EGFR is endocytosed and transported to lysosomes where the receptor is degraded. This downregulation of EGFR is a complex and tightly regulated process. The functions of ErbB2, ErbB3, and ErbB4 are also regulated by endocytosis to some extent, although the current knowledge of these processes is sparse. Impaired endocytic downregulation of signaling receptors is frequently associated with cancer, since it can lead to increased and uncontrolled receptor signaling. In this review we describe the current knowledge of ErbB receptor endocytic downregulation. In addition, we outline how ErbB receptors can escape endocytic downregulation in cancer, and we discuss how targeted anti-cancer therapy may induce endocytic downregulation of ErbB receptors.

Internalization mechanisms of the epidermal growth factor receptor after activation with different ligands.

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) regulates normal growth and differentiation, but dysregulation of the receptor or one of the EGFR ligands is involved in the pathogenesis of many cancers. There are eight ligands for EGFR, however most of the research into trafficking of the receptor after ligand activation focuses on the effect of epidermal growth factor (EGF) and transforming growth factor-α (TGF-α). For a long time it was believed that clathrin-mediated endocytosis was the major pathway for internalization of the receptor, but recent work suggests that different pathways exist. Here we show that clathrin ablation completely inhibits internalization of EGF- and TGF-α-stimulated receptor, however the inhibition of receptor internalization in cells treated with heparin-binding EGF-like growth factor (HB-EGF) or betacellulin (BTC) was only partial. In contrast, clathrin knockdown fully inhibits EGFR degradation after all ligands tested. Furthermore, inhibition of dynamin function blocked EGFR internalization after stimulation with all ligands. Knocking out a number of clathrin-independent dynamin-dependent pathways of internalization had no effect on the ligand-induced endocytosis of the EGFR. We suggest that EGF and TGF-α lead to EGFR endocytosis mainly via the clathrin-mediated pathway. Furthermore, we suggest that HB-EGF and BTC also lead to EGFR endocytosis via a clathrin-mediated pathway, but can additionally use an unidentified internalization pathway or better recruit the small amount of clathrin remaining after clathrin knockdown.

Dysregulation of Ack1 inhibits down-regulation of the EGF receptor

The protein tyrosine kinase Ack1 has been linked to cancer when over-expressed. Ack1 has also been suggested to function in clathrin-mediated endocytosis and in down-regulation of the epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor (EGFR). We have studied the intracellular localization of over-expressed Ack1 and found that Ack1 co-localizes with the EGFR upon EGF-induced endocytosis in cells with moderate over-expression of Ack. This co-localization is mainly observed in early endosomes. Furthermore, we found that over-expression of Ack1 retained the EGFR at the limiting membrane of early endosomes, inhibiting sorting to inner vesicles of multivesicular bodies. Down-regulation of Ack1 in HeLa cells resulted in reduced rate of (125)I-EGF internalization, whereas internalization of (125)I-transferrin was not affected. In cells where Ack1 had been knocked down by siRNA, recycling of internalized (125)I-EGF was increased, while degradation of (125)I-EGF was inhibited. Together, these data suggest that Ack1 is involved in an early step of EGFR desensitization.

EGF receptor inhibitors increase ErbB3 mRNA and protein levels in breast cancer cells.

The potential benefits of drugs directly targeting the ErbB receptors for cancer therapy have led to an extensive development within this field. However, the clinical effects of ErbB receptor-targeting drugs in cancer treatment are limited due to a high frequency of resistance. It has been reported that, when inhibiting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib, increased activation of ErbB3 via MET, or by re-localization of ErbB3 mediates cell survival. Here we show further evidence that members of the ErbB receptor family facilitate resistance to EGFR inhibitor treatment in ErbB2 overexpressing breast cancer cells. We found that gefitinib treatment increased ErbB3 expression, both at protein and mRNA levels. ErbB3 expression was upregulated not only by gefitinib but also by a panel of different EGFR inhibitors, suggesting that inhibition of EGFR in general affects ErbB3 expression. In addition, we found that gefitinib treatment increased ErbB2 expression levels while EGFR inhibitors decreased the activity of ErbB2. Concentrations of gefitinib that decreased phospho-ErbB2 reversely increased ErbB3 levels. We further examined changes induced by gefitinib treatment on mRNA levels of the most common genes known to be involved in breast cancer. As expected, we found that gefitinib downregulated genes whose functions were linked to cellular proliferation, such as Ki-67, topoisomerase II alpha and cyclins, and surprisingly downregulated gene expression of FAS which is involved in apoptotic signaling. Together, our data strongly suggest that resistance to EGFR inhibitors may result from the compensation of other family members and that combinations of anti-cancer drugs are required to increase the sensitivity of these treatments.

EGFR signaling patterns are regulated by its different ligands

Abstract EGF receptor (EGFR) and its signaling have been investigated for many years, but how its different ligands regulate signaling has not been thoroughly explored. When investigating EGFR activation and downstream signaling in HeLa cells using a panel of ligands, we found a ligand-dependent differential activation of EGFR and the signaling pathways Akt, PLCγ and STAT with HB-EGF and BTC being the most potent ligands. All the tested ligands induced full activation of Erk signaling at 1 nM, whereas only HB-EGF and partly BTC and EGF induced strong activation of Akt, STAT3 and PLCγ at this concentration. Interestingly, we also found that the high activation potencies of HB-EGF and BTC could only partially be explained by their binding affinities, and are therefore likely to be regulated by other mechanisms. We thus suggest that the signaling pathways initiated from the EGFR vary depending on the ligands bound in a cell specific manner.

Differential Roles of Grb2 and AP-2 in p38 MAPK- and EGF-Induced EGFR Internalization.

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is an important regulator of normal growth and differentiation, and it is involved in the pathogenesis of many cancers. Endocytic downregulation is central in terminating EGFR signaling after ligand stimulation. It has been shown that p38 MAPK activation also can induce EGFR endocytosis. This endocytosis lacks many of the characteristics of ligand‐induced EGFR endocytosis. We compared the two types of endocytosis with regard to the requirements for proteins in the internalization machinery. Both types of endocytosis require clathrin, but while epidermal growth factor (EGF)‐induced EGFR internalization also required Grb2, p38 MAPK‐induced internalization did not. Interestingly, AP‐2 knock down blocked p38 MAPK‐induced EGFR internalization, but only mildly affected EGF‐induced internalization. In line with this, simultaneously mutating two AP‐2 interaction sites in EGFR affected p38 MAPK‐induced internalization much more than EGF‐induced EGFR internalization. Thus, it seems that EGFR in the two situations uses different sets of internalization mechanisms.

Molecular constituents of the extracellular matrix in rat liver mounting a hepatic progenitor cell response for tissue repair

BackgroundTissue repair in the adult mammalian liver occurs in two distinct processes, referred to as the first and second tiers of defense. We undertook to characterize the changes in molecular constituents of the extracellular matrix when hepatic progenitor cells (HPCs) respond in a second tier of defense to liver injury.ResultsWe used transcriptional profiling on rat livers responding by a first tier (surgical removal of 70% of the liver mass (PHx protocol)) and a second tier (70% hepatectomy combined with exposure to 2-acetylaminofluorene (AAF/PHx protocol)) of defense to liver injury and compared the transcriptional signatures in untreated rat liver (control) with those from livers of day 1, day 5 and day 9 post hepatectomy in both protocols. Numerous transcripts encoding specific subunits of collagens, laminins, integrins, and various other extracellular matrix structural components were differentially up- or down-modulated (P < 0.01). The levels of a number of transcripts were significantly up-modulated, mainly in the second tier of defense (Agrn, Bgn, Fbn1, Col4a1, Col8a1, Col9a3, Lama5, Lamb1, Lamb2, Itga4, Igtb2, Itgb4, Itgb6, Nid2), and their signal intensities showed a strong or very strong correlation with Krt1- 19, a well-established marker of a ductular/HPC reaction. Furthermore, a significant up-modulation and very strong correlation between the transcriptional profiles of Krt1-19 and St14 encoding matriptase, a component of a novel protease system, was found in the second tier of defense. Real-time PCR confirmed the modulation of St14 transcript levels and strong correlation to Krt-19 and also showed a significant up-modulation and strong correlation to Spint1 encoding HAI-1, a cognate inhibitor of matriptase. Immunodetection and three-dimensional reconstructions showed that laminin, Collagen1a1, agrin and nidogen1 surrounded bile ducts, proliferating cholangiocytes, and HPCs in ductular reactions regardless of the nature of defense. Similarly, matriptase and HAI-1 were expressed in cholangiocytes regardless of the tier of defense, but in the second tier of defense, a subpopulation of HPCs in ductular reactions co-expressed HAI-1 and the fetal hepatocyte marker Dlk1.ConclusionTranscriptional profiling and immunodetection, including three-dimensional reconstruction, generated a detailed overview of the extracellular matrix constituents expressed in a second tier of defense to liver injury.

Abstract 264: EGFR endocytosis after binding of different ligands

The EGF receptor (EGFR) is activated by binding of ligand, leading to both signaling and receptor endocytosis. This endocytosis can lead to receptor downregulation, or recycling. Although EGFR regulation has received much attention, most studies have been performed using either EGF or TGFα. We described EGFR endocytosis upon binding of four additional ligands. Even though all ligands induce internalization, degradation of the receptor is dependent on the nature of the ligand bound. We have shown that the different ligands vary in levels of EGFR activation, receptor ubiquitination, and also in pH-stability of receptor-ligand interaction. We found that whereas HB-EGF and betacellulin are strong inducers of EGFR degradation, TGFα and epiregulin mostly allow for recycling of the EGFR. Amphiregulin also allows for recycling of the EGFR, but by a slower pathway. EGF leads to both recycling and degradation of the EGFR. We now show that, in addition to intracellular sorting in endosomes, the mechanism of internalization of the EGFR from the plasma membrane also differs depending on which ligand is bound. Note: This abstract was not presented at the AACR 101st Annual Meeting 2010 because the presenter was unable to attend. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 264.

Abstract 308: Differential roles of AP2 in p38 MAPK- and ligand-induced EGFR internalization

Proceedings: AACR 101st Annual Meeting 2010‐‐ Apr 17‐21, 2010; Washington, DC The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is an important regulator of normal growth and differentiation, and it is involved in the pathogenesis of many cancers. Endocytic downregulation is central in terminating EGFR signalling after ligand stimulation, and this downregulation is fairly well known. Recently, it has been shown that also p38 MAPK activation can stimulate EGFR endocytosis. This endocytosis differs from the ligand-induced internalization by lacking many of the hallmarks normally necessary for endocytosis of EGFR. We compared the two kinds of endocytosis with regard to the requirements for proteins in the internalization machinery. Both kinds of endocytosis require clathrin heavy chain, but whereas EGF-induced EGFR internalization required Grb2, p38 MAPK-induced internalization did not. Interestingly, AP2 knock down blocked p38 MAPK-induced EGFR internalization, but only mildly affected EGF-induced internalization. The involvement of AP2 in EGFR endocytosis was verified with at Eps15 mutant that sequesters AP2 in the cytosol and abolishes AP2 function. The functional difference of AP2 in the two kinds of EGFR internalization is currently investigated. Note: This abstract was not presented at the AACR 101st Annual Meeting 2010 because the presenter was unable to attend. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 308.