alpha 4 Integrin Binding Interfaces on VCAM-1 and MAdCAM-1
INTEGRIN BINDING FOOTPRINTS IDENTIFY ACCESSORY BINDING SITES THAT PLAY A ROLE IN INTEGRIN SPECIFICITY*

(Received for publication, March 18, 1997, and in revised form, May 12, 1997)

Peter Newham Dagger §, Susan E. Craig Dagger , Garry N. Seddon , Neil R. Schofield Dagger , Amanda Rees , R. Mark Edwards par , E. Yvonne Jones **Dagger Dagger and Martin J. Humphries Dagger

From the Dagger  Wellcome Trust Centre for Cell-Matrix Research, School of Biological Sciences, University of Manchester, 2.205 Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, United Kingdom,  Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK10 4TF, United Kingdom, the par  British Biotech Ltd., Watlington Road, Cowley, Oxford OX4 5LY, United Kingdom, and the ** Laboratory of Molecular Biophysics, Oxford Centre for Molecular Sciences, Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QU, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
FOOTNOTES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Integrins are a family of heterodimeric adhesion receptors that mediate cellular interactions with a range of matrix components and cell surface proteins. Vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) is an endothelial cell ligand for two leukocyte integrins (alpha 4beta 1 and alpha 4beta 7). A related CAM, mucosal addressin cell adhesion molecule-1 (MAdCAM-1) is recognized by alpha 4beta 7 but is a poor ligand for alpha 4beta 1. Previous studies have revealed that all alpha 4 integrin-ligand interactions are dependent on a key acidic ligand motif centered on the CAM domain 1 C-D loop region. By generating VCAM-1/MAdCAM-1 chimeras and testing recombinant proteins in cell adhesion assays we have found that alpha 4beta 1 binds to the MAdCAM-1 adhesion motif when present in VCAM-1, but not when the VCAM-1 motif was present in MAdCAM-1, suggesting that this region does not contain all of the information necessary to determine integrin binding specificity. To characterize integrin-CAM specificity further we measured alpha 4beta 1 and alpha 4beta 7 binding to a comprehensive set of mutant VCAM-1 constructs containing amino acid substitutions within the predicted integrin adhesion face. These data revealed the presence of key "regulatory residues" adjacent to integrin contact sites and an important difference in the "footprint" of alpha 4beta 1 and alpha 4beta 7 that was associated with an accessory binding site located in VCAM-1 Ig domain 2. The analogous region in MAdCAM-1 is markedly different in size and sequence and when mutated abolishes integrin binding activity.


INTRODUCTION

Under normal conditions, leukocytes exhibit a weakly adhesive phenotype, however, at sites of inflammation or at specialized lymphoid tissues, leukocyte adhesion receptor activity is modulated and cells become capable of interacting with ligands expressed on the lumenal surface of the vasculature. Leukocyte integrin receptors and endothelial immunoglobulin superfamily cell adhesion molecules (IgCAMs) make key contributions to the events that facilitate leukocyte emigration into the tissues (1, 2).

Integrins are alpha /beta heterodimeric cell surface adhesion receptors that recognize a wide variety of extracellular ligands (3). For most integrins, the mechanism of ligand recognition appears to be critically dependent upon one of two short acidic peptide motifs: RGD and LDV (4, 5). Several extracellular matrix molecules express the RGD motif in an invariant form and are ligands for a number of integrins (e.g. alpha 5beta 1, alpha IIbbeta 3, alpha vbeta 1, alpha vbeta 3; Refs. 6-10). In contrast, the LDV motif exhibits sequence variation. For example, the leukocyte integrins alpha 4beta 1 and alpha 4beta 7 recognize an LDVP motif in fibronectin (11-15), an IDSP sequence in the N-terminal domain of IgCAM vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1)1 (16-22), and an LDTS sequence in a second IgCAM, mucosal addressin cell adhesion molecule-1 (MAdCAM-1) (23-26).

Integrin-ligand interactions can be perturbed by short peptides based on RGD or LDV. Interestingly LDV-containing peptides (and small peptide mimetics) competitively inhibit alpha 4beta 1 interactions with both fibronectin and VCAM-1 indicating that the integrin ligand-binding sites for both of these ligands are either overlapping or identical (16, 27, 28).2

The x-ray crystal structure of the two N-terminal Ig domains of human VCAM-1 has recently been solved. Both domains adopt a beta -beta sandwich topology, composed of an anti-parallel array of beta -strands (28, 29). As predicted by homology modeling studies the IDSP motif is located on a projected loop between beta -strands C and D, atypical of previously characterized Ig domains (16, 30, 31). Other homology modeling and sequence analysis studies have suggested that three beta 2 integrin IgCAM ligands (intercellular adhesion molecules 1, 2 and -3, (ICAM-1, -2, -3)) also have an Ig structure analogous to that of VCAM-1 (32-36). Since ICAM-1, -2, and -3 are also dependent on an LDV-like motif for adhesive activity (IETP, LETS, and LETS, respectively) this suggests that integrin-binding IgCAMs have a common active site (33, 37-39). Extensive mutational analysis of IgCAMs has provided invaluable information regarding integrin-CAM interactions, and certain residues that lie outside the LDV motif of VCAM-1 (16, 18, 19, 22), ICAM-1 (33), and ICAM-3 (38, 39) have been shown to play an important role in integrin recognition.

Thus, integrin-IgCAM interactions appear to share several common features: a characteristic Ig-fold and a dominant acidic peptide motif flanked by non-contiguous accessory residues. Key questions that remain are: what are the principal features of IgCAM structures that govern receptor selection and specifically does the dominant LDV-like motif encode integrin receptor specificity or are additional residues required to discriminate between integrin receptors?

Using the VCAM-1 crystal structure (29) as a basis for a mutagenesis study we have generated IgCAM chimeras and investigated the link between IgCAM LDV motif degeneracy and integrin binding. Using this data we have further characterized the interaction of alpha 4beta 1 and alpha 4beta 7 with VCAM-1 and have identified additional key binding/regulatory residues both within and outside the C-D loop of Ig domain 1. Our results provide evidence of distinct but overlapping alpha 4beta 1/alpha 4beta 7 adhesion footprints that extend over both of the most membrane distal domains of VCAM-1 and provide an insight into the mode of integrin-IgCAM specificity.


EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Cell Lines and Monoclonal Antibodies

A375-SM cells, a human metastatic melanoma cell line (provided by I. J. Fidler, M. D. Anderson Hospital and University of Texas, Houston, TX) were cultured as described (40) in Eagle's minimal essential medium containing 10% (v/v) fetal calf serum, minimal essential medium vitamins, non-essential amino acids, 1 mM sodium pyruvate, and 2 mM glutamine (all from Life Technologies, Inc., Paisley, United Kingdom). COS-1 cells were cultured in Dulbecco's minimal essential medium, 0.11g/liter of sodium pyruvate, 10% fetal calf serum, 2 mM glutamine as described (27). JY cells were cultured in RPMI 1640 medium supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum and 2 mM glutamine. Anti-VCAM-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) 4B2 (anti-domain 1), 1E10 (anti-domain 1), and 19C3 (anti-domain 2) were gifts of J. Clements (British Biotech, Cowley, Oxford, UK).

CAM-Fc Cloning and Expression

Truncated CAM-Fc chimeras consisting of Ig domains 1 and 2 of human VCAM-1 or murine MAdCAM-1 fused to the hinge and Fc region of human IgG1 were constructed as follows. pCDM8-VCAM (a gift of J. Clements) and pCDM8-MAdCAM (a gift of Dr. Peter Altevogt, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany) were used as templates for the polymerase chain reaction amplification of DNA encoding 5' and 3' restriction sites, the 5'-untranslated region, Ig domains 1 and 2 of VCAM-1 or MAdCAM-1 and a 3' splice donor consensus sequence (35). Amplified DNA was cloned into the phagemid vector pUC118 (VCAM) or pUC119 (MAdCAM) and sequenced. CAM cDNA constructs were then subcloned using EcoRI (VCAM) or EcoRI/BamHI (MAdCAM) into the pIg mammalian expression vector (a gift of D. Simmons, Institute of Molecular Medicine, Oxford, UK) encoding a consensus splice acceptor sequence and the hinge and Fc portion of human IgG1 downstream of the multiple cloning site.

Mutations were introduced into CAM cDNAs by the method of Kunkel et al. (41) using the Mutagene phagemid mutagenesis kit (Bio-Rad, Hemel Hemstead, Herts, UK). Mutants were confirmed by sequencing. A list of mutagenic primers (size range 20-74-mer) is available on request.

COS-1 cells in exponential phase were trypsinized and washed twice with divalent cation-free phosphate-buffered saline and resuspended in cation-free phosphate-buffered saline to a concentration of 6-8 × 106 cells/750-µl aliquot. Triplicate aliquots were mixed with 10-20 µg of pIg-CAM DNA, prepared by alkaline lysis and anion-exchange resin (Qiagen, Dorking, Surrey, UK), and chilled on ice for 15-20 min in 0.4-cm gap electroporation cuvettes. Cells were electroporated in a Gene Pulser II (Bio-Rad) electroporator (parameters: 950 microfarads, 0.25 kV). Triplicate transfectants were pooled and resuspended in culture medium and seeded into 3 × 225-cm2 flasks each containing 35 ml of culture medium. Cells were cultured for 16 h in a humidified atmosphere of 5% (v/v) CO2 at 37 °C. Culture supernatants were then replaced with Dulbecco's minimal essential medium, 2 mM glutamine, 1% fetal calf serum (precleared of immunoglobulins with protein G-Sepharose, Pharmacia, St. Albans, Herts, UK) and cells cultured for 7-10 days. Expressed proteins were isolated from conditioned media by mixing with protein A-Sepharose (Pharmacia) for 16 h and eluting bound proteins with 0.1 M citric acid, pH 3.5, into a neutralizing volume of 1 M Tris, pH 9.0. CAM-Fc proteins were dialyzed against 25 mM HEPES, 150 mM NaCl, pH 7.4 (HEPES-buffered saline, HBS).

Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay of CAM-Fc Proteins

Assays were carried out in 96-well plates (Costar, Northumbria Biologicals, Cramlington, UK). Wells were coated for 60 min at room temperature with 50 µl of CAM-Fc (10 µg/ml) and nonspecific sites blocked with 5% (w/v) bovine serum albumin, 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris, pH 7.4, for 60 min. Plates were washed and 50-µl aliquots of primary mAbs (10 µg/ml) in HBS were added to triplicate wells and incubated for 60 min at room temperature. Bound antibody was detected with rabbit anti-mouse IgG (Fc-specific) alkaline phosphatase-conjugated secondary antibody (1:1000 dilution in HBS; Sigma, Poole, Dorset, UK) and chromogenic substrate, p-nitrophenyl phosphate (Sigma).

Cell Spreading Assay

Cell spreading assays were performed as described previously (42, 43). Assays were carried out in 96-well plates. Wells were coated for 60 min at room temperature with 50 µl of CAM-Fc diluted with HBS. Wells were blocked for 60 min at room temperature with 100 µl of 10 mg/ml heat-denatured bovine serum albumin (42). A375-SM cells were detached with 0.05% (w/v) trypsin, 0.02% (w/v) EDTA, resuspended to 1 × 105/ml in Dulbecco's minimal essential medium, 25 mM HEPES and allowed to recover for 10 min at 37 °C. 100-µl aliquots of cells were added to each well and plates incubated in a humidified atmosphere of 7% (v/v) CO2 for 60 min at 37 °C. Cells were fixed by the addition of 20 µl of 50% (v/v) glutaraldehyde and monitored for the degree of spreading using phase-contrast microscopy as described (43). Each data point was obtained by counting at least 300 cells/well from a number of randomly selected fields. No cell spreading was observed on wells coated only with heat-denatured bovine serum albumin.

Cell Attachment Assay

96-well plates were coated for 60 min at room temperature with 50 µl of CAM-Fc diluted with HBS and blocked with heat-denatured bovine serum albumin (see above). JY cells were centrifuged at 1400 × g for 3 min, washed in Dulbecco's minimal essential medium, 25 mM HEPES (assay medium), resuspended at 1 × 106/ml in assay medium and allowed to recover at 37 °C for 10 min. 50-µl aliquots of cells were added to CAM-Fc-coated wells containing 50 µl of HBS, 0.2 mM MnCl2 and incubated in a humidified atmosphere of 7% (v/v) CO2 for 20 min at 37 °C. Cells attached to untreated wells were fixed directly with 20 µl of 50% (v/v) glutaraldehyde to enable quantitation of cell number. Nonspecifically attached cells were aspirated from experimental wells and the residual cells fixed with 5% (v/v) glutaraldehyde. Fixed cells were then washed three times with H2O and stained for 60 min with 0.1% (w/v) crystal violet in 0.2 M MES, pH 6. Excess stain was removed with three water washes before cells were lysed with 10% (v/v) acetic acid and the released stain measured spectrophotometrically at A560 nm.


RESULTS

The predicted C-D loop sequences of VCAM-1, MAdCAM-1, and ICAMs 1-3 have all been implicated as sites for integrin binding and, without exception, possess an acidic residue essential for receptor interaction. Alignment of these sequences reveals a consensus integrin-binding motif (Fig. 1). Despite only subtle variations within this consensus and the use of a relatively conserved Ig domain structure, integrins are capable of discriminating between IgCAM ligands. Although the two related integrins, alpha 4beta 1 and alpha 4beta 7, can both bind VCAM-1 and MAdCAM-1, there is a ligand preference between the two integrins; alpha 4beta 1 is primarily a receptor for VCAM-1 whereas alpha 4beta 7 is primarily a receptor for MAdCAM-1. The C-D loops of VCAM-1 and MAdCAM-1 differ in two major respects: (i) the VCAM-1 loop is composed of 8 amino acids, the MAdCAM-1 loop only 6, and (ii) two positions flanking the active site motif differ in MAdCAM-1, Gly for Gln and Ser for Pro (see Fig. 1). We therefore tested the hypothesis that IgCAM selection by these two integrins is regulated by C-D loop sequence differences.


Fig. 1. Alignment of IgCAM integrin-binding sites. Two VCAM-1 Ig domains are recognized by alpha 4beta 1: Ig domains 1 and 4 (D1 and D4 in the figure). MAdCAM-1 is a ligand for alpha 4beta 7. ICAMs-1, -2, and -3 are ligands for beta 2 integrins. All sequences shown correspond to the predicted C-D loop regions of active Ig domains with the central integrin-binding motifs shaded. All sequences are human. The consensus motif sequence is shown below.
[View Larger Version of this Image (37K GIF file)]

For this purpose truncated VCAM-1/MAdCAM-1 proteins containing the two N-terminal Ig domains were synthesized as fusion proteins joined to the Fc region of human IgG1. Expression of IgCAM protein in a soluble form provides a major advantage over cell-surface expressed molecules since it is possible to examine the dose dependence of adhesive activity in a quantitative manner and determine relative activities. Since VCAM-1 and MAdCAM-1 Ig domain 1 C-D loops are predicted to differ in size, two VCAM-1/MAdCAM-1 chimeras and two MAdCAM-1/VCAM-1 chimeras were constructed, each chimera differing with respect to their parent molecule and C-D loop size (see Fig. 2). CAM-Fc fusion proteins were purified and tested for their ability to support alpha 4beta 1-dependent or alpha 4beta 7-dependent cell adhesion and structural integrity monitored using a panel of mAbs (Fig. 3, Table I). VCAM-1-Fc supported alpha 4beta 1-dependent cell spreading, but MAdCAM-1 was a poor ligand confirming previous reports (23, 44). When VCAM/MAdCAM C-D loop chimeras were tested for alpha 4beta 1 binding activity, one chimera (VCAM-Fc chimera B) demonstrated a super-adhesive phenotype compared with the native VCAM-Fc construct (Fig. 3). In contrast, the VCAM-Fc chimera A failed to support cell adhesion as did both MAdCAM-Fc chimeras. Similarly alpha 4beta 7-dependent assays revealed that both MAdCAM-Fc chimeras demonstrated very low adhesive activities. However, again VCAM-Fc chimera B supported increased alpha 4beta 7 binding compared with native VCAM-Fc (Fig. 3). Although local structural perturbations may be responsible for the reduced binding activities of some of the chimeras, as a whole these data suggest that the VCAM-1 C-D loop is not entirely responsible for preferential recognition of VCAM-1 by alpha 4beta 1 compared with MAdCAM-1. However, interestingly, they do suggest that the MAdCAM-1 C-D adhesion loop represents a more ideal alpha 4 integrin binding structure.


Fig. 2. Generation of VCAM-1/MAdCAM-1 C-D loop chimeras. VCAM-1 amino acids that form beta -strand secondary structure according to the x-ray crystal structure of Jones et al. (29) are overlaid with an arrow, while MAdCAM-1 sequence secondary structure is predicted on the basis of alignment. beta -Strands are labeled according to Ig domain structure convention and correspond to those designated by Jones et al. (29). VCAM-1 and MAdCAM-1 C-D loops are predicted to differ in size: VCAM-1, 8 amino acids; MAdCAM-1, 6 amino acids. Thus, two types of chimera were generated: first by maintaining loop size, i.e. swapping only aligned sequence; or second, by changing loop size, i.e. by making exact sequence swaps. Chimera nomenclature: VCAM-Fc chimera A, native VCAM-1 with MAdCAM-1 Ig domain 1 C-D loop sequence, 8 amino acids replaced with 6 amino acids. VCAM chimera B, native VCAM-1 with MAdCAM-1 Ig domain 1 C-D loop sequence, 6 amino acids replaced with 6 amino acids. MAdCAM-Fc chimera A, native MAdCAM-1 with VCAM-1 Ig domain 1 C-D loop sequence, 6 amino acids replaced with 8 amino acids. MAdCAM chimera B, native MAdCAM-1 with VCAM-1 Ig domain 1 C-D loop sequence, 6 amino acids replaced with 6 amino acids.
[View Larger Version of this Image (42K GIF file)]


Fig. 3. Comparison of IgCAM-chimera-Fc adhesive activity. A and B, A375-SM (alpha 4beta 1+) spreading assay; and C and D, JY (alpha 4beta 7+) attachment assay on purified IgCAM/IgCAM chimera-Fc proteins. x axis, IgCAM-Fc coating concentration (µg/ml). y axis, % cell spreading (A and B)/attachment (C and D). Key: bullet , native VCAM-Fc; black-square, native MAdCAM-Fc. A and C, Delta , VCAM-Fc chimera A; down-triangle, VCAM-Fc chimera B. B and D: Delta , MAdCAM-Fc chimera A; down-triangle, MAdCAM-Fc chimera B.
[View Larger Version of this Image (21K GIF file)]

Table I. ELISA analysis of VCAM-mutant-Fc proteins

A panel of three mAbs were used. 4B2 and 1E10, both anti-VCAM-1 Ig domain 1 and 19C3 an anti-VCAM-1 Ig domain 2. Data are recorded as percentages of native VCAM-Fc response, numbers in italics are standard deviations. Data were obtained from two separate experiments, where n = 3 in each experiment. VCAM A = VCAM-Fc chimera A, VCAM B = VCAM-Fc chimera B. GIET = VCAM Q38IDS/GEIT; VI1CD = VCAM-1 R36TQIDS/LLGIET (VCAM-1 C-D loop mutated to predicted ICAM-1 domain 1 C-D loop) and VI3CD = VCAM-1 R36TQIDSP/KIALETS (VCAM-1 C-D loop mutated to predicted ICAM-3 domain 1 C-D loop). See text for further explanation.

Mutant 4B2 1E10 19C3

E29A 103.60 7.09 80.86 13.14 105.68 7.12
S30A 93.42 5.05 91.83 9.13 85.89 9.38
R36A 126.39 15.27 121.61 10.36 119.94 11.96
R36E 98.52 11.17 93.19 7.29 153.83 11.81
Q38E 74.19 11.83 71.19 5.64 88.11 17.40
Q38G 86.70 6.80 89.18 13.50 79.66 8.33
Q38L 64.86 5.78 59.67 3.53 51.29 11.92
Q38F 109.19 4.15 115.95 15.87 104.88 9.37
Q38K 97.11 15.96 68.66 9.68 65.46 16.03
I38A 89.86 13.65 90.15 4.59 95.02 3.98
I39K 88.58 5.24 78.57 12.87 68.04 14.03
I39R 85.16 6.22 83.60 9.09 75.13 16.06
I39V 91.39 11.19 111.76 12.41 80.45 17.22
D40A 92.39 6.79 101.81 5.37 91.55 13.96
D40E 100.87 15.08 108.95 7.85 99.40 9.14
S41T 118.71 10.19 102.36 5.15 139.46 7.80
P42G 137.31 6.94 119.25 11.11 151.05 11.15
L43A 105.63 9.51 87.35 6.40 246.21 13.42
L43K 32.37 8.90 21.73 4.17 228.27 11.56
K46A 86.45 13.28 78.08 3.23 146.81 9.08
V47A 92.19 13.00 86.48 6.57 196.31 17.16
V47K 25.51 8.51 6.97 3.69 245.72 5.98
S68A 55.52 7.86 58.03 3.62 46.79 8.48
L70A 77.03 3.49 95.90 18.35 130.23 17.33
L70K 123.61 11.39 127.80 14.93 135.64 14.49
T72A 137.84 16.38 135.89 9.54 87.04 8.04
T74A 114.37 17.08 119.59 9.94 127.25 8.55
S77A 137.26 19.91 115.59 4.93 119.95 4.69
K79Q 70.20 14.35 71.10 14.08 66.12 7.8
L80A 131.40 12.04 126.21 8.19 164.97 15.25
L80K 118.28 10.14 101.42 6.92 150.12 12.25
E81A 117.33 5.06 123.62 8.90 214.18 9.66
E87A 64.59 4.64 58.53 12.10 58.89 14.18
E87K 50.68 16.66 71.76 7.78 56.15 14.41
D143A 72.50 7.53 75.37 4.75 79.49 6.58
K147A 115.51 18.04 110.66 4.93 135.92 8.28
S148A 69.90 12.78 74.47 9.13 64.71 9.80
E150A 87.27 10.85 85.83 8.03 67.28 9.79
T151A 117.37 10.85 116.40 12.05 132.13 5.63
K152A 111.36 8.58 94.60 12.82 90.41 6.22
S153A 75.21 11.58 80.90 7.53 68.58 14.47
E155A 68.97 12.19 82.85 6.66 72.07 5.28
T157A 84.89 13.58 88.95 5.86 60.61 9.16
GIET 97.28 21.02 114.23 10.73 132.01 21.66
VI1CD 10.64 1.46 20.93 4.19 86.75 4.90
VI3CD 30.74 3.87 18.28 3.43 191.22 11.48
VCAM A 0.67 1.08 0.00 0.00 121.55 27.03
VCAM B 143.70 22.50 128.80 8.26 141.29 12.36

We next attempted to identify those residues of the VCAM-1 C-D loop that were responsible for alpha 4beta 1/alpha 4beta 7 binding activity and thus provide a molecular explanation for the super-adhesive activity of the MAdCAM-1 adhesion loop. The x-ray crystal structure of VCAM-1 domain 1 C-D loop (29) was analyzed and those residues that were both conserved between species (human, mouse, and rat) and were solvent-accessible were targeted for mutagenesis. Residues Arg, at position 36 of the mature protein (Arg36), Gln38, Ile39, Asp40, Pro42, and Leu43 met these criteria and VCAM-Fc proteins, mutated at each of these positions, were expressed, purified, and tested for their ability to promote alpha 4beta 1/alpha 4beta 7-dependent cell adhesion and for their structural integrity (Figs. 4, 5, 6, Table I). The D40A mutation (alanine substituted for aspartate at position 40) has been previously shown to abolish VCAM-1-alpha 4beta 1 binding and was used as a control (16, 18, 19, 21, 22). In contrast to published data (19), substitution of glutamate for aspartate (D40E) at this position markedly reduced alpha 4beta 1-dependent cell spreading, but did not abolish it (Fig. 4). Mutation R36A was found to have no effect on alpha 4beta 1-dependent cell adhesion, however, R36E markedly reduced activity. Mutations at position 38 that introduced either a positive or negative charge (Glu or Arg) also reduced cell adhesion. Mutations at positions 39 and 43 where aliphatic side chains were replaced with charged residues (Arg or Lys) also had negative effects on VCAM-1 activity and, in the case of mutant L43K, abolished alpha 4beta 1 binding (Fig. 4).


Fig. 4. A375-SM spreading on VCAM-Fc C-D loop mutants. x axis, mutant VCAM-Fc coating concentration (µg/ml). y axis, % cell spreading. bullet , native VCAM-Fc; black-square, VCAM-D40A-Fc negative control; Delta , VCAM-mutant-Fc.
[View Larger Version of this Image (16K GIF file)]


Fig. 5. A375-SM spreading on VCAM-Fc C-D loop mutants. x axis, mutant VCAM-Fc coating concentration (µg/ml). y axis, % cell spreading. bullet , native VCAM-Fc; black-square, VCAM-D40A-Fc negative control; Delta , VCAM-mutant-Fc.
[View Larger Version of this Image (8K GIF file)]


Fig. 6. JY attachment to VCAM-Fc C-D loop mutants. x axis, mutant VCAM-Fc coating concentration (µg/ml). y axis, % cell attachment. bullet , native VCAM-Fc; black-square, VCAM-D40A-Fc negative control; Delta , VCAM-mutant-Fc.
[View Larger Version of this Image (23K GIF file)]

We further investigated the role of amino acids Glu38 and Ile39 in alpha 4beta 1-VCAM-1 interactions by making further amino acid alterations at these positions. Gln38 mutated to either a glycine or a leucine demonstrated a super-adhesive phenotype with significant changes in the concentration of protein required for half-maximal cell spreading (2-4-fold decrease, Fig. 5). Thus, removing a hydrophilic side chain at this position, or replacing it with an aliphatic group, conferred not a negative effect but instead augmented alpha 4beta 1-VCAM-1 binding. These data are consistent with the effects observed with one of the VCAM-1/MAdCAM-1 chimeras (VCAM-Fc chimera B), where the equivalent amino acid to VCAM-1 Gln38 in the MAdCAM-1 C-D loop is glycine. The effect of increasing hydrophobicity at position 38 was further tested by the introduction of a large aromatic residue, phenylalanine. Intriguingly, alpha 4beta 1-dependent cell adhesion was still supported with only a 2-fold increase in the concentration for half-maximal spreading (Fig. 5). Two further mutations at position 39 were performed to test the effects of subtle changes in the aliphatic side chain characteristics, I39A and I39V. Remarkably, the smaller alanine side chain severely affected alpha 4beta 1 binding ability with a marked reduction in maximal spreading; however, a valine at this position only slightly affected activity (Fig. 5).

alpha 4beta 7 adhesion data largely mirrored that of alpha 4beta 1, however, no super-adhesive phenotype was obtained with mutations at position Gln38. In addition, D40E abolished alpha 4beta 7-dependent attachment and mutants Q38F and I39V markedly reduced alpha 4beta 7 binding (Fig. 6). MAdCAM-1 C-D loop residues were also tested for their contribution to alpha 4beta 1 and alpha 4beta 7 binding. Residues Gly39, Asp41, and Leu44 were mutated and expressed as MAdCAM-Fc fusion proteins. alpha 4beta 1-dependent cell adhesion was abolished and alpha 4beta 7-dependent cell attachment severely affected by all four mutations, reinforcing the role of this region of the molecule in integrin binding (Fig. 7 and data not shown). Of note, however, is the finding that the MAdCAM-D41E-Fc mutant had a very low alpha 4beta 7 binding activity, in marked contrast to the equivalent VCAM-1 mutation (D40E), which could support a significant level of alpha 4beta 1-mediated cell spreading.


Fig. 7. JY attachment to MAdCAM-Fc C-D loop mutants. x axis, VCAM-Fc, MAdCAM-Fc and indicated MAdCAM-mutant-Fc proteins were all coated at 10 µg/ml. y axis, % cell attachment.
[View Larger Version of this Image (25K GIF file)]

The results described above clearly suggest that residues outside the VCAM-1 C-D loop play a role in integrin selection. We therefore attempted to map the adhesion "footprints" of alpha 4beta 1 and alpha 4beta 7 in an effort to identify a difference in binding requirements and an explanation for the preference for VCAM-1 by alpha 4beta 1. Since the VCAM-1 C-D loop appears to be central to alpha 4 integrin binding we reasoned it was likely that residues that comprise this "face" of the Ig domain 1 might be capable of participating directly in integrin binding. In addition, since VCAM-1 Ig domain 2 has been predicted to play a role in alpha 4beta 1 binding from studies with ICAM-1 chimeras, this region was also targeted for mutagenesis (17). Those residues that constitute the predicted integrin-binding face that are both conserved between species and solvent-accessible (as revealed by the x-ray crystal structure, Ref. 29) are highlighted in Fig. 8. These residues were mutated to either alanine or another amino acid (often to swap or introduce charge) and expressed as VCAM-Fc fusion proteins. All mutants were examined for structural perturbations using anti-VCAM-1 mAbs in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Table I). Only mutation V47K affected binding of both domain 1 mAbs. VCAM-Fc mutants were then tested for their ability to support alpha 4beta 1-dependent spreading or alpha 4beta 7-dependent attachment (Figs. 9 and 10, respectively).


Fig. 8. VCAM-1 Ig domains 1 and 2 x-ray crystal structure (29). A, MOLSCRIPT (55) representation of VCAM-1 Ig domains 1-2. beta -Strands are represented by pointed ribbons indicating the direction of primary sequence (N- to C-terminal) and are organized into two opposing sheets (colored red and blue) in each Ig domain. B, space-fill representation of VCAM-1 Ig domains 1-2. All atoms are represented as spheres proportional to predicted Van der Waal's radii. Atoms are colored according to type: gray, carbon; red, oxygen; blue, nitrogen; and yellow, sulfur. Atoms colored cyan are from residues that are conserved between species of VCAM-1 (human, mouse, and rat), predicted to be solvent-accessible according to x-ray crystal structure data, and located on the Ig domain 1 C-D loop face. C as B except the structure has been rotated anti-clockwise by 90°.
[View Larger Version of this Image (58K GIF file)]


Fig. 9. A375-SM spreading on VCAM-Fc mutants. x axis, mutant VCAM-Fc coating concentration (µg/ml). y axis, % cell spreading. bullet , native VCAM-Fc; black-square, VCAM-D40A-Fc negative control; Delta , VCAM-mutant-Fc.
[View Larger Version of this Image (31K GIF file)]


Fig. 10. JY attachment to VCAM-Fc mutants. x axis, mutant VCAM-Fc coating concentration (µg/ml). y axis, % cell attachment. bullet , native VCAM-Fc; black-square, VCAM-D40A-Fc negative control; Delta , VCAM-mutant-Fc.
[View Larger Version of this Image (37K GIF file)]

For clarity and visual presentation the effects of mutations were classified according to the maximal level of adhesion attained and the concentration required to reach half-maximum adhesion. "Severe" effects produced <50% of the maximal level of spreading on native VCAM-Fc and the protein concentration required for half-maximal spreading was either not reached or was >7-fold higher than native VCAM-Fc. "Marked" effects were classified as those that reached 60-70% maximum native adhesion with a 3-4-fold increase in concentration required for half-maximal concentration. "Slight" effects produced 80-100% of maximum spreading with only a 2-fold increase in concentration required for half-maximal adhesion. In addition, if adhesion was augmented (maximum adhesion unchanged but protein concentration required for half-maximum adhesion decreased two-fold or more) then a mutant VCAM-Fc was described as "super-adhesive" (see Fig. 11).


Fig. 11. Space-fill representation of VCAM-1 Ig domains 1-2 with target residues (see Fig. 8) color coded according to the effects of mutation on adhesion. All atoms are represented as spheres proportional to predicted Van der Waal's radii. All other residues are "ghosted." Color code for effect of mutations on integrin binding: green, no effect; yellow, slight; orange, marked; red, severe; purple, augmentation (see text for effect classification). A, effects of mutations on alpha 4beta 1 binding; and B, effects of mutations alpha 4beta 7 binding.
[View Larger Version of this Image (98K GIF file)]

Only two residues outside the C-D loop, when mutated, were found to affect alpha 4beta 1-VCAM-Fc binding severely, Leu70 and Glu87. Several residues, however (Thr72, Glu81, Asp143, Ser148, and Glu150), markedly affected alpha 4beta 1 interactions. Mutations of amino acids at six further positions resulted in a slight perturbation of alpha 4beta 1-dependent adhesion (Lys46, Val47, Ser68, Ser77, Glu155, and Thr157). Interestingly, three amino acids outside the C-D loop (Thr74, Leu80, and Lys147), when mutated to alanine, conferred a super-adhesive phenotype on VCAM-Fc. In contrast, alpha 4beta 7 appeared to differ in its sensitivity to mutation of residues outside the C-D loop region. Only one residue in Ig domain 1 severely affected alpha 4beta 7 binding (Glu87) and mutations of Leu70 had no effect on alpha 4beta 7 binding (Fig. 10). Furthermore, Ig domain 1 mutations that markedly affected alpha 4beta 1 binding (Thr72 and Glu81) had no effect on alpha 4beta 7-mediated cell attachment. One of the main differences between alpha 4beta 1- and alpha 4beta 7-VCAM-1 interactions appeared to lie in Ig domain 2; mutation of three residues at positions 143, 148, and 150 severely affected alpha 4beta 7-dependent cell adhesion. In addition, residues that markedly affected alpha 4beta 7 binding were also located in domain 2 (Lys152 and Glu155). A further difference was the super-adhesive activity of T151A for alpha 4beta 7. The key integrin-binding residues identified in VCAM-1 domain 2 correspond to the C'-E loop region, a region in MAdCAM-1 domain 2 highlighted to be of potential functional importance (29). We therefore directly tested the role of this region of MAdCAM-1 in alpha 4 integrin binding by engineering a deletion mutant in which the central acidic region (143-150) of the highly extended Ig domain 2 C'-E loop had been deleted. The resultant mutant (MAdCAM-Delta C'-E-Fc) was then assayed for alpha 4beta 1 and alpha 4beta 7 binding activity (Fig. 12). In both experiments, MAdCAM-Delta C'-E-Fc failed to support alpha 4beta 1 or alpha 4beta 7-mediated cell adhesion, confirming the importance of this region for both alpha 4 integrin interactions.


Fig. 12. A375-SM spreading and JY attachment to MAdCAM-Fc and MAdCAM-Delta C'E-Fc mutant. A, A375-SM spreading on MAdCAM-Fc and MAdCAM-Delta C'E-Fc proteins coated at 50 µg/ml. B, JY attachment to MAdCAM-Fc and MAdCAM-Delta C'E-Fc proteins coated at 10 µg/ml. y axis: A, % cell spreading attachment; B, % cell attachment.
[View Larger Version of this Image (31K GIF file)]


DISCUSSION

Using IgCAM chimeras and a structure-guided site-directed mutagenesis strategy, we have analyzed the molecular basis of alpha 4 integrin binding to the IgSF members VCAM-1 and MAdCAM-1. All VCAM-1 and MAdCAM-1 mutants were produced as recombinant IgG Fc fusion proteins permitting quantitative analysis of purified mutant binding properties.

The main findings reported here are that the C-D loops of these IgCAMs are only partially responsible for integrin specificity, and that alpha 4beta 1/alpha 4beta 7 integrin binding footprints on VCAM-1 differ in their relative dependence on residues within VCAM-1 Ig domains 1 and 2. In addition, we report that several amino acids within VCAM-1 modulate integrin interactions with residues at predicted integrin contact sites. These findings for the first time demonstrate a direct role for VCAM-1 Ig domain 2 and suggest a mechanism for integrin selection by IgCAMs.

Integrin-IgCAM interactions are dependent on a relatively conserved acidic peptide motif presented as a surface-exposed structure supported on a conserved Ig-domain scaffold. Despite only slight variations in this binding motif, integrin-CAM specificities are exquisite. This suggests two possibilities, either slight variations within this motif are sufficient to discriminate integrin receptors or this motif might represent a general binding structure and integrin selection may be governed by distal sites. We investigated the role of IgCAM C-D loop motifs in regulating integrin specificity by making chimeras between VCAM-1 and MAdCAM-1 (the former is primarily a ligand for alpha 4beta 1, the latter for alpha 4beta 7). alpha 4beta 1-dependent cell spreading assays revealed that MAdCAM-1 chimera Fc fusion proteins expressing either of two VCAM-1 C-D adhesion loop variants failed to demonstrate increased binding to alpha 4beta 1 over native MAdCAM-1, indicating that the VCAM-1 C-D adhesion loop alone was insufficient to confer full alpha 4beta 1 binding activity. Intuitively, complementary VCAM-1 (MAdCAM C-D loop) chimeras might therefore be expected to possess lower alpha 4beta 1 binding activity compared with native VCAM-Fc. However, one chimera (VCAM Fc chimera B) demonstrated super-adhesive alpha 4beta 1 binding activity. When both sets of chimeras were tested for alpha 4beta 7 binding activity, essentially identical results were obtained; MAdCAM-1 chimeras with the VCAM-1 C-D adhesion loop supported reduced levels of cell attachment whereas the super-adhesive VCAM-Fc chimera B again demonstrated a slight increase in the ability to bind integrin relative to native VCAM-Fc. These data reinforce the importance of CAM C-D loops in integrin binding and suggest that alpha 4 integrins have a distinct preference for the C-D loop structure presented by MAdCAM-1 Ig domain 1. Furthermore, since alpha 4beta 1 has a greater affinity for VCAM-1 compared with MAdCAM-1 this would suggest that alpha 4beta 1-VCAM-1 binding is enhanced (or MAdCAM-1 binding is attenuated) by sites outside the C-D loop.

Despite several studies on alpha 4beta 1-VCAM-1 interactions, alpha 4beta 1 contact sites within the VCAM-1 C-D loop are not fully understood. In an effort to enhance our understanding of integrin-IgCAM interactions we made a detailed analysis of the VCAM-1 and MAdCAM-1 C-D loops. To aid our study we analyzed the x-ray crystal structure of VCAM-1 (29) and identified those C-D loop residues that were both conserved between species (mouse, rat, and human) and surface-exposed, reasoning that functionally important residues would be conserved and accessible to integrin.

alpha 4 integrin-dependent adhesion data obtained with purified mutant C-D loop VCAM-Fc fusion proteins has extended our understanding of alpha 4 integrin binding requirements. Mutation of Arg36 to alanine had no effect, while replacement with a glutamate markedly affected alpha 4beta 1 interactions. This indicates that the physical characteristics of the arginine side chain are not absolutely required for integrin-VCAM-1 engagement, however, a negative charge in this position (glutamate) appears to adversely affect the recognition of adjacent residues. Analysis of the x-ray crystal structure of VCAM-1 in this region reveals that Arg36 is in close proximity to the acidic side chain of Asp40 (see Fig. 8) and therefore might feasibly influence the pKa of the crucial Asp40 carboxyl group and consequently integrin active site engagement. Alternatively, alterations at position 36 might affect the conformation of neighboring side chains within the C-D loop. Mutagenesis data on amino acid Gln38 suggest an important role in alpha 4beta 1-VCAM-1 binding, since changing the glutamine to a charged residue (glutamate or lysine) severely affected alpha 4beta 1 binding. However, removal of the glutamine side chain (Q38G) was found to convert VCAM-1 into a super-adhesive alpha 4beta 1 ligand and replacement of glutamine with an aliphatic residue (leucine) resulted in a further enhancement of integrin binding activity. When a phenylalanine was substituted into this position a slight decrease in alpha 4beta 1 binding capacity was observed. At least two explanations can be drawn from these data: first, part of the integrin active site might comprise a restricted pocket with hydrophobic characteristics and thus have a preference for interacting with hydrophobic residues. Alternatively, residues in position 38 might not be directly recognized by the alpha 4beta 1 active site but might confer subtle structural alterations on the remainder of the C-D loop, thus modifying integrin binding. It is notable that the MAdCAM-1 C-D loop possesses a glycine in a homologous position to Gln38, providing an explanation for the super-adhesive phenotype of VCAM-Fc chimera B.

Residues at VCAM-1 positions 39, 40, and 43 are critical for alpha 4beta 1 binding. Several mutations of Ile39 were tested: replacing isoleucine with a charged residue or an alanine residue severely affected alpha 4beta 1 binding ability, however, replacement with valine only resulted in a slight decrease in activity. These data are again consistent with a hydrophobic pocket at or near the integrin-ligand-binding site. Charged residues or side chains too small to fill this pocket result in compromised integrin interactions, while longer, branched side chains such as valine appear to be sufficient to permit essentially unperturbed alpha 4beta 1 binding. Previous reports in which Asp40 was replaced with alanine, asparagine, or lysine resulted in abolition of VCAM-1 adhesive activity (16, 18, 19), however, mutation of Asp40 to glutamate was reported to have no detectable affect on alpha 4beta 1 binding (19). Here, we observed a marked effect on alpha 4beta 1-VCAM-1 binding when Asp40 was mutated to glutamate. In addition VCAM-1 mutants R36A and P42G have been reported previously to perturb alpha 4beta 1 binding (19, 22), an explanation for these discrepancies is unclear. Previous mutagenesis studies coupled with sequence alignment data have identified the alpha 4 binding motif within VCAM-1 as IDSP; however, we report here that Leu43 is crucial for integrin-VCAM-1 binding and therefore propose that the adhesion motif should be extended to include this residue: i.e. IDSPL.

Analysis of the effects of residues in the C-D loop region on alpha 4beta 7-VCAM-1 binding revealed essentially the same results as alpha 4beta 1 binding, however, there were several key differences: (i) the Q38G mutation slightly reduced alpha 4beta 7 interactions, while Q38L only slightly enhanced alpha 4beta 7 binding, (ii) mutant I39V had markedly reduced alpha 4beta 7 binding activity, and (iii) D40E abolished alpha 4beta 7-VCAM-1 interactions. These data suggest subtle differences between the ligand-binding sites of alpha 4beta 1 and alpha 4beta 7 and imply that alpha 4beta 1 may possess a slightly deeper pocket to accommodate the crucial acidic group at position 40.

Mutation of analogous C-D loop residues within MAdCAM-1 confirmed that both IgCAM C-D loops have essentially identical integrin binding characteristics. Again point mutations provided an explanation for results obtained with VCAM-1/MAdCAM-1 chimeras: amino acid Gly39 (analogous to VCAM-1 Gln38) when mutated to glutamine almost abolished alpha 4beta 7 binding. Interestingly the native VCAM-(Gln38)-Fc and MAdCAM-1-Fc chimera A possessed alpha 4beta 7 binding activity, suggesting that the increased loop size of this construct comprised a more ideal adhesion structure than MAdCAM-G39Q-Fc. The importance of this region of MAdCAM-1 has recently been confirmed by mutagenesis and peptide inhibition studies: MAdCAM-1 residues Leu40, Asp41, Thr42, and Leu44 were found to be required for full alpha 4beta 7 binding activity (45).

These data demonstrate for the first time the effects of performing full IgCAM C-D loop swaps. However, partial swaps have been investigated previously; the central portion of the ICAM-1 Ig domain 1 C-D loop has been used to replace the analogous region of VCAM-1 and was found to have no negative effect on alpha 4beta 1 binding (18). Our data with the same mutant in our VCAM-Fc construct (Q38IDS/GIET) demonstrated identical integrin binding activity (data not shown). Analysis of the effects of point mutations described above now provides an explanation for these observations: the overall phenotype of the Q38IDS/GIET mutation is a composite effect of Q38G (super-adhesive) and D40E (marked negative effect), thus the overall effect produces a native phenotype. We further investigated the ability of the ICAM-1 (and ICAM-3) C-D loop sequences to substitute for that of VCAM-1 by performing whole loop swaps (8 VCAM-1 C-D loop amino acids replaced with 8 ICAM-1 (or ICAM-3) C-D loop amino acids, see Fig. 1). The resulting constructs failed to bind two anti-VCAM-1 mAbs (4B2 and 1E10, see Table I) and failed to bind alpha 4beta 1 (data not shown). These data suggest that the ICAM-1 and ICAM-3 C-D loops, although similar to that of VCAM-1 in terms of sequence and function, may adopt markedly different conformations.

Taken together, these data provide an insight into the structural requirements of alpha 4 integrins for the C-D loops of VCAM-1 and MAdCAM-1 and also identify mutant forms of VCAM-1 capable of conferring a super-adhesive phenotype. In an effort to identify those sites outside the C-D loop that differentially affect alpha 4beta 1/alpha 4beta 7 binding, we performed an extensive survey of the contribution of VCAM-1 Ig domain 1 and 2 amino acids. We targeted residues that were conserved between species, surface-exposed, and confined to the C-D loop face of the molecule according to the VCAM-1 x-ray crystal structure (29, Fig. 8). When purified mutant VCAM-Fc proteins were tested for their ability to bind alpha 4beta 1 and alpha 4beta 7 in cell-based assays, striking differences between alpha 4beta 1 and alpha 4beta 7 binding were observed. Although both integrins had an acute requirement for residues within the C-D loop, their respective adhesion footprints over VCAM-1 Ig domains 1 and 2 differed in two major respects. First, key Ig domain 1 residues required for alpha 4beta 1-VCAM-1 interactions outside the C-D loop included Leu70, Thr72, Glu81, and Glu87 but only Glu87 appeared to be involved in alpha 4beta 7-VCAM-1 binding. Second, mutation of amino acids at three positions in Ig domain 2 (Asp143, Ser148, and Glu150) had a marked, but not severe effect, on alpha 4beta 1 binding whereas these residues have a much more pronounced affect on alpha 4beta 7 binding (Fig. 11). Furthermore, mutation of two residues, Lys152 and Glu155, had a marked effect on alpha 4beta 7 binding reinforcing the importance of this region for alpha 4beta 7-VCAM-1 binding. In addition, several residues were found to augment integrin binding with effects analogous to the Q38G/Q38L mutants. In all instances augmentation sites (Thr74, Leu80, Lys147 (both alpha 4beta 1 and alpha 4beta 7), and Thr151 (alpha 4beta 7 only)) lie spatially close to residues that affect integrin interactions (Fig. 11). The identification of Thr151 as an augmentation site in the case of alpha 4beta 7-VCAM-1 binding further implies that residues in this region of VCAM-1 Ig domain 2 have a greater role for alpha 4beta 7 interactions compared with alpha 4beta 1. Although the mechanism of integrin-binding augmentation is unclear, it is likely that changes at these positions confer slight structural changes which lead to enhanced integrin recognition of nearby contact sites. The main evidence to support this hypothesis comes from the finding that replacement of the native residue with amino acids of very different physical characteristics are capable of producing the same result, e.g. L80A, L80K (Fig. 9).

Overall these data suggest an important shift in the "binding footprint" between alpha 4beta 1 and alpha 4beta 7. alpha 4beta 1 primarily binds to VCAM-1 Ig domain 1 via a group of residues comprised of the C-D adhesion loop and three further adjacent Ig domain 1 sites with a contribution from several Ig domain 2 residues, whereas alpha 4beta 7, apart from residues within the Ig domain 1 C-D loop has a reduced requirement for sites within Ig domain 1 but a pronounced requirement for residues that locate to the C'-E loop/E beta -strand of Ig domain 2. Conflicting data regarding the role of Leu70 for alpha 4beta 7 binding have been reported: VCAM-L70N was found to abolish both alpha 4beta 1 and alpha 4beta 7 interactions (22). Since both Leu70 mutants tested here, L70A and L70K perturbed alpha 4beta 1 but not alpha 4beta 7 binding, an explanation for this discrepancy is not clear, however, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay data suggest that the L70N mutant may perturb structure since two anti-functional mAbs bind with reduced affinity relative to a native VCAM-1 construct (56 and 42%; Ref. 22).

One of the most important implications of our findings is that the C'-E loop of Ig domain 2 contributes to the regulation of integrin-IgCAM specificity. This hypothesis is strikingly reinforced by sequence alignment studies between VCAM-1 and MAdCAM-1 (29). The C'-E loop of MAdCAM-1 Ig domain 2 is highly acidic and contains a sequence of three consecutive glutamate residues (murine MAdCAM-1, Ref. 24) or five consecutive glutamate residues (human MAdCAM-1, Ref. 51). Since alpha 4beta 7 binding is highly sensitive to the removal, by site-directed mutagenesis, of acidic residues from the C'-E loop of VCAM-1 Ig domain 2, this suggests a key role for this region in governing MAdCAM-1-alpha 4beta 7 interactions. We therefore examined the effect of truncating the MAdCAM-1 Ig domain 2 C'-E loop by removing residues 143-150 (including the acidic sequence of amino acids predicted to be inserted residues in comparison to VCAM-1 Ig domain 2 C'-E loop, Ref. 29). In both alpha 4beta 1- and alpha 4beta 7-dependent assays, cell binding activity was abolished, confirming the role of this region in integrin interactions (Fig. 12).

Comparison of integrin-IgCAM interactions with other ligands reveals striking parallels. Several integrins interact with the extracellular matrix protein fibronectin including alpha 5beta 1, alpha Vbeta 1, alpha IIbbeta 3, and alpha Vbeta 3 and all four integrins require the tripeptide motif RGD displayed by the 10th type III repeat of fibronectin (FnIII(10)) (6-10). Site-directed mutagenesis, domain deletion, and peptide-based approaches have subsequently identified a second binding site (sequence PHSRN, termed the synergy site) located in the 9th type III repeat (46-52). The x-ray crystal structure of this region of fibronectin (FnIII(7-10)) has recently been solved and reveals a tandem array of fibronectin type III repeats; each composed of an anti-parallel array of beta -strands analogous to Ig domains (53). The RGD motif lies in the F-G loop of FnIII(10) and the synergy sequence is found in the C-E loop and part of E beta -strand. Comparison of the arrangement of active sites in fibronectin with that of VCAM-1 highlights three similarities: (i) both sets of adhesion motifs are on surface-exposed loops, (ii) both molecules display active sites on the same face of adjacent domains, and (iii) the functional groups of the key amino acids in each motif are approximately 30-40 Å apart. Thus, two different integrin ligands appear to share a broadly similar "binding topology" composed of a dominant adhesion motif (IDSPL, VCAM-1, and RGD, fibronectin) coupled to second "synergy site" that may regulate integrin specificity (Ig domain 2 C'-E loop-E strand, VCAM-1 and III(9) C-E loop and part of E beta -strand, fibronectin).

Historically, peptide-based approaches have dominated the identification of integrin ligand active sites, and this has led to the perception that integrins principally recognize discrete peptide motifs such as RGD and LDV. However, data, largely provided by site-directed mutagenesis studies, is now accumulating to suggest that integrin recognition sites on ligands are more complex and are comprised of a dominant acidic peptide flanked by additional contact residues. In the future it will be of interest to assess the relative contribution of functionally important residues in providing the free-energy of interaction between integrin and ligand, an approach successfully used to identify residues responsible for human growth hormone-human growth hormone receptor interactions (54). In turn these findings, together with the use of reporter mAbs (such as those that recognize integrin neo-epitopes arising as a result of ligand engagement), might provide clues as to the connection between ligand engagement by integrin and the conformational responses that occur prior to signal transduction across the plasma membrane.


FOOTNOTES

*   This work was supported in part by grants from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (to P. N.) and the Wellcome Trust (to M. J. H. and S. E. C.).The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
§   To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 161-275-5649; Fax: 161-275-5071; E-mail: pnewham{at}fs2.scg.man.ac.uk.
Dagger Dagger    Royal Society University Research Fellow.
1   The abbreviations used are: VCAM-1, vascular cell adhesion molecule-1; MAdCAM-1, mucosal addressin cell adhesion molecule-1; mAb, monoclonal antibody; HBS, HEPES-buffered saline; MES, 4-morpholineethanesulfonic acid.
2   R. Lobb, personal communication.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful for the assistance of Linda Berry, Katherine Clark, Ian Hesketh, and Drs. John Clements and Tim Dudgeon for helpful advice and discussions. We also thank Drs. Paul Mould and Danny Tuckwell for advice and critical reading of the manuscript.


REFERENCES

  1. Butcher, E. C. (1992) Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 323, 181-194 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Springer, T. A. (1994) Cell 76, 301-314 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Hynes, R. O. (1992) Cell 69, 11-25 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Humphries, M. J. (1990) J. Cell Sci. 97, 585-592 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Newham, P., and Humphries, M. J. (1996) Mol. Med. Today. 2, 304-313 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Gardner, J. M., and Hynes, R. O. (1985) Cell 42, 439-448 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Pytela, R., Pierschbacher, M. D., and Ruoslahti, E. (1985) Cell 40, 191-198 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Pytela, R., Pierschbacher, M. D., and Ruoslahti, E. (1985) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 82, 5766-5770 [Abstract]
  9. Pytela, R., Pierschbacher, M. D., Ginsberg, M. H., Plow, E. F., and Ruoslahti, E. (1986) Science 231, 1559-1562 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Dedhar, S., and Gray, V. (1990) J. Cell Biol. 110, 2185-2193 [Abstract]
  11. Wayner, E. A., Garcia-Pardo, A., Humphries, M. J., McDonald, J. A., and Carter, W. G. (1989) J. Cell Biol. 109, 1321-1330 [Abstract]
  12. Mould, A. P., Wheldon, L. A., Komoriya, A., Wayner, E. A., Yamada, K. M., and Humphries, M. J. (1990) J. Biol. Chem. 265, 4020-4024 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Komoriya, A., Green, L. J., Mervic, M., Yamada, S. S., Yamada, K. M., and Humphries, M. J. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 15075-15079 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Chan, B. M., Elices, M. J., Murphy, E., and Hemler, M. E. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 267, 8366-8370 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Ruegg, C., Postigo, A. A., Sikorski, E. E., Butcher, E. C., Pytela, R., and Erle, D. J. (1992) J. Cell Biol. 117, 179-189 [Abstract]
  16. Clements, J. M., Newham, P., Shepherd, M., Gilbert, R., Dudgeon, T. J., Needham, L. A., Edwards, R. M., Berry, L., Brass, A., and Humphries, M. J. (1994) J. Cell Sci. 107, 2127-2135 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Osborn, L., Vassallo, C., and Benjamin, C. D. (1992) J. Exp. Med. 176, 99-107 [Abstract]
  18. Osborn, L., Vassallo, C., Browning, B. G., Tizard, R., Haskard, D. O., Benjamin, C. D., Dougas, I., and Kirchhausen, T. (1994) J. Cell Biol. 124, 601-608 [Abstract]
  19. Renz, M. E., Chiu, H. H., Jones, S., Fox, J., Kim, K. J., Presta, L. G., and Fong, S. (1994) J. Cell Biol. 125, 1395-1406 [Abstract]
  20. Vonderheide, R. H., and Springer, T . A. (1992) J. Exp. Med. 175, 1433-1442 [Abstract]
  21. Vonderheide, R. H., Tedder, T. F., Springer, T. A., and Staunton, D. E. (1994) J. Cell Biol. 125, 215-222 [Abstract]
  22. Chiu, H. H., Crowe, D. T., Renz, M. E., Presta, L. G., Jones, S., Weissman, I. L., and Fong, S. (1995) J. Immunol. 155, 5257-5267 [Abstract]
  23. Berlin, C., Berg, E. L., Briskin, M. J., Andrew, D. P., Kilshaw, P. J., Holzmann, B., Weissman, I. L., Hamann, A., and Butcher, E. C. (1993) Cell 74, 185-195 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Briskin, M. J., McEvoy, L. M., and Butcher, E. C. (1993) Nature 363, 61-64
  25. Briskin, M. J., Rott, L., and Butcher, E. C. (1996) J. Immunol. 156, 719-726 [Abstract]
  26. Erle, D. J., Briskin, M. J., Butcher, E. C., Garcia-Pardo, A., Lazarovits, A. I., and Tidswell, M. (1994) J. Immunol. 153, 517-528 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Makarem, R., Newham, P., Askari, J. A., Green, L. J., Clements, J., Edwards, M., Humphries, M. J., and Mould, A. P. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 4005-4011 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Wang, J. H., Pepinsky, R. B., Stehle, T., Liu, J. H., Karpusas, M., Browning, B., and Osborn, L. (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92, 5714-5718 [Abstract]
  29. Jones, E. Y., Harlos, K., Bottomley, M. J., Robinson, R. C., Driscoll, P. C., Edwards, R. M., Clements, J. M., Dudgeon, T. J., and Stuart, D. I. (1995) Nature 373, 539-544 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Newham, P., Tuckwell, D. S., Brass, A., and Humphries, M. J. (1992) Biochem. Soc. Trans. 21, 339S
  31. Harpaz, Y., and Chothia, C. (1994) J. Mol. Biol. 238, 528-539 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Staunton, D. E., Dustin, M. L., and Springer, T. A. (1989) Nature 339, 61-64 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Staunton, D. E., Dustin, M. L., Erickson, H. P., and Springer, T. A. (1990) Cell 61, 243-254 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Berendt, A. R., McDowall, A., Craig, A. G., Bates, P. A., Sternberg, M. J., Marsh, K., Newbold, C. I., and Hogg, N. (1992) Cell 68, 71-81 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Fawcett, J., Holness, C. L., Needham, L. A., Turley, H., Gatter, K. C., Mason, D. Y., and Simmons, D. L. (1992) Nature 360, 481-484 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Vazeux, R., Hoffman, P. A., Tomita, J. K., Dickinson, E. S., Jasman, R. L., St. John, T., and Gallatin, W. M. (1992) Nature 360, 485-488 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Li, R., Nortamo, P., Valmu, L., Tolvanen, M., Huuskonen, J., Kantor, C., and Gahmberg, C. G. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268, 17513-17518 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Holness, C. L., Bates, P. A., Littler, A. J., Buckley, C. D., McDowall, A., Bossy, D., Hogg, N., and Simmons, D. L. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 877-884 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Klickstein, L. B., York, M. R., de Fougerolles, A., and Springer, T. A. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 23920-23927 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Kozlowski, J. M., Hart, R., Fidler, I. J., and Hanna, N. (1984) J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 72, 913-917 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Kunkel, T. A., Roberts, J. D., and Zakour, R. A. (1987) Methods Enzymol. 154, 367-382 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  42. Humphries, M. J., Akiyama, S. K., Komoriya, A., Olden, K., and Yamada, K. M. (1986) J. Cell Biol. 103, 2637-2647 [Abstract]
  43. Mould, A. P., and Humphries, M. J. (1991) EMBO J. 10, 4089-4095 [Abstract]
  44. Strauch, U. G., Lifka, A., Gosslar, U., Kilshaw, P. J., Clements, J., and Holzmann, B. (1994) Int. Immunol. 6, 263-275 [Abstract]
  45. Shyjan, A. M., Bertagnolli, M., Kenney, C. J., and Briskin, M. J. (1996) J. Immunol. 156, 2851-2857 [Abstract]
  46. Aota, S., Nagai, T., and Yamada, K. M. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 15938-15943 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Bowditch, R. D., Halloran, C. E., Aota, S., Obara, M., Plow, E. F., Yamada, K. M., and Ginsberg, M. H. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 23323-23328 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Bowditch, R. D., Hariharan, M., Tominna, E. F., Smith, J. W., Yamada, K. M., Getzoff, E. D., and Ginsberg, M. H. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 10856-10863 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Nagai, T., Yamakawa, N., Aota, S., Yamada, S. S., Akiyama, S. K., Olden, K., and Yamada, K. M. (1991) J. Cell Biol. 114, 1295-1305 [Abstract]
  50. Aota, S., Nomizu, M., and Yamada, K. M. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 24756-24761 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Mardon, H. J., and Grant, K. E. (1994) FEBS Lett. 340, 197-201 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  52. Danen, E. H., Aota, S., van Kraats, A. A., Yamada, K. M., Ruiter, D. J., and van Muijen, G. N. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 21612-21618 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Leahy, D. J., Aukhil, I., and Erickson, H. P. (1996) Cell 84, 155-164 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  54. Clackson, T., and Wells, J. A. (1995) Science 267, 383-386 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  55. Kraulis, P. J. (1991) J. Appl. Crystallogr. 24, 946-950 [CrossRef]

©1997 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.