Transforming Growth Factor-beta Induces Formation of a Dithiothreitol-resistant Type I/Type II Receptor Complex in Live Cells*

Rebecca G. Wellsabcd, Lilach Gilboacef, Yin Sunbg, Xuedong Liubh, Yoav I. Henise, and Harvey F. Lodishbij

From b The Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, e Department of Neurobiochemistry, The George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel, a Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, and i Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

    ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
References

Transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta ) binds to and signals via two serine-threonine kinase receptors, the type I (Tbeta RI) and type II (Tbeta RII) receptors. We have used different and complementary techniques to study the physical nature and ligand dependence of the complex formed by Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII. Velocity centrifugation of endogenous receptors suggests that ligand-bound Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII form a heteromeric complex that is most likely a heterotetramer. Antibody-mediated immunofluorescence co-patching of epitope-tagged receptors provides the first evidence in live cells that Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex formation occurs at a low but measurable degree in the absence of ligand, increasing significantly after TGF-beta binding. In addition, we demonstrate that pretreatment of cells with dithiothreitol, which inhibits the binding of TGF-beta to Tbeta RI, does not prevent formation of the Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex, but increases its sensitivity to detergent and prevents TGF-beta -activated Tbeta RI from phosphorylating Smad3 in vitro. This indicates that either a specific conformation of the Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex, disrupted by dithiothreitol, or direct binding of TGF-beta to Tbeta RI is required for signaling.

    INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
References

The transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta )1 ligands are members of a large superfamily of cystine knot growth factors, which includes decapentaplegic (dpp) from Drosophila melanogaster as well as the Müllerian-inhibiting substance and the activins and bone morphogenetic proteins from mammals. The TGF-beta s are important modulators of development, the extracellular matrix, and the immune response; they are potent growth inhibitors in many cell types, and their receptors and some downstream signaling elements are tumor suppressors (1-5).

TGF-beta signals through the sequential activation of two serine-threonine kinase cell surface receptors (6-10), termed type I and type II (Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII). These two receptors physically associate to form a stable complex (8, 11). Several chimeric receptor systems have established that this complex is required for signaling (12-16). Whether it is preformed or ligand-induced is controversial. Isolation of a Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex from detergent lysates was possible only after pretreatment with TGF-beta (9). Ligand-independent interactions between receptor cytoplasmic domains, however, have been detected in transfected COS cells and in the yeast two-hybrid system,2 and work with TGF-beta 2 (which requires both receptors to bind) suggests that at least a small percentage of the cell surface receptor population is in preformed complexes (9, 17-19). Data from experiments on the effect of DTT also raise questions about the role of ligand in the complex. Treatment of cells with DTT prevents TGF-beta binding to Tbeta RI but not to Tbeta RII (8, 20) and, in vitro, prevents formation of the Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex.3

The stoichiometry of the signaling complex is not known. Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII form ligand-independent homodimers in the endoplasmic reticulum and on the cell surface (21, 22). The simplest model is that two homodimers form a heterotetrameric signaling complex induced or activated by TGF-beta . This view is supported by studies based on functionally complementary type I receptor mutants and on chimeric TGF-beta /erythropoietin receptors demonstrating that type I dimers are required for signaling (13, 23). Yamashita et al. (24) used nonreducing/reducing two-dimensional SDS-PAGE to isolate ligand-bound Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII homo- and heterodimers. They speculate that these are derived from heterotetramers, although their data are also consistent with smaller complexes.

We report here studies on the physical nature of the Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex. We demonstrate that the complex is most likely a stable heterotetramer. Our studies show conclusively that some Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complexes exist at the surface of live cells in the absence of ligand, and that TGF-beta significantly enhances heterocomplex formation. DTT treatment, which prevents TGF-beta binding to Tbeta RI, does not inhibit complex formation but does result in the failure of Tbeta RI from DTT-treated cells to phosphorylate Smad3 in vitro. We suggest that ligand binding to the two receptors may have different functions, and that complex formation itself is not sufficient for signal initiation.

    EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Materials and Constructs-- COS7 (CRL 1651), L6 (CRL 1458), and Mv1Lu (CCL 64) cells were grown as described previously (22, 25). 9E10 (alpha -Myc) mouse ascites was from Harvard Monoclonals and 12CA5 (alpha -HA) from BabCO. Fluorophore-labeled affinity-purified antibodies, Cy3-streptavidin, and biotinylated F(ab')2 of Galpha M (goat anti-mouse F(ab')2 were from Jackson Immunoresearch Laboratories. IgG fractions and monovalent F(ab') fragments were prepared as described (22, 26, 27). Untagged Tbeta RI, Tbeta RII, and N-terminally HA- and Myc-tagged receptors were as described previously (6, 10, 21, 22).

Binding and Cross-linking-- Radioiodination of TGF-beta 1 (Celtrix Laboratories and R&D Systems) and binding and cross-linking of subconfluent cells were as described (25). Cells were preincubated (30 min, 37 °C) in KRH (50 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 128 mM NaCl, 1.3 mM CaCl2, 5 mM MgSO4, 5 mM KCl) containing 0.5% fatty acid free BSA (KRH/BSA; Sigma). DTT-treated cells were incubated with 2 mM DTT (5 min, 37 °C) and then rinsed three times with warm KRH/BSA. Cells were then incubated (1-4 h, 4 °C) in fresh KRH/BSA with 100 pM 125I-TGF-beta 1. Cross-linking was performed with 0.5 mg/ml disuccinimidyl suberate (Pierce) for 15 min, followed by quenching with 20 mM glycine. Cells to be used for gradients (Fig. 1) were then rinsed, incubated in 0.2 mM iodoacetamide in KRH (15 min, 4 °C), and lysed in 150 µl of MNT lysis buffer (20 mM MES, pH 6.0, 30 mM Tris, pH 7.4, 100 mM NaCl, with 2% n-octyl-polyoxyethylene (octyl-POE; Bachem Bioscience)). For co-immunoprecipitation (Fig. 3), cells were lysed in 1 ml of various lysis buffers (see Fig. 3 legend). After clearing the lysates, 100 µl were analyzed directly by SDS-PAGE. The remainder was split in half and immunoprecipitated (overnight, 4 °C) with either 10 µl/ml of antibody alpha -IIC, a polyclonal rabbit antiserum raised against the C-terminal 16 amino acids of the type II receptor (11), or 14 µl/ml of antibody VPN, raised against the juxtamembrane region of the human type I receptor (6). After an additional 30 min of incubation with 50 µl 1:1 protein A-Sepharose in PBS, bound beads were rinsed twice with the original lysis buffer then once with PBS. Protein was eluted into SDS-sample buffer and analyzed by SDS-PAGE.

Velocity Centrifugation on Sucrose Gradients-- The velocity centrifugation technique has been described elsewhere (22). Briefly, cleared lysates (150 µl in MNT lysis buffer) were mixed with 50 µl size markers (29-669 kDa; Sigma) and layered over 7.5-30% sucrose gradients in MNT/1% octyl-POE. Centrifugation was for 8 h, 60,000 rpm, in an SW60 rotor (Beckman) at 4 °C. 250 µl fractions were removed sequentially from the top of each gradient. After removal of 25 µl for SDS-PAGE and Coomassie staining (to analyze migration of markers for each individual gradient), fractions were immunoprecipitated with alpha -IIC or VPN. Samples were analyzed by 7.5% SDS-PAGE. Autoradiographs were quantified with a LaCie Silverscanner II and MacBAS (Fuji) software.

Immunofluorescence Co-patching-- The method used has been described elsewhere (21, 22). In the protocol used (detailed in Ref. 21), COS7 cells co-transfected with Tbeta RI-Myc and Tbeta RII-HA were preincubated (30 min, 37 °C) in serum-free Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium, washed twice with cold Hanks' balanced salt solution with 20 mM HEPES, pH 7.4, containing 1% fatty acid-free BSA, and incubated successively with (a) normal goat IgG (200 µg/ml) to block nonspecific binding; (b) alpha -Myc F(ab') (50 µg/ml); (c) F(ab') of biotinylated Galpha M (5 µg/ml); (d) F(ab') of unlabeled Galpha M (200 µg/ml), used to block all free epitopes on the alpha -Myc F(ab'); (e) alpha -HA IgG (20 µg/ml); (f) fluorescein isothiocyanate-labeled Galpha M (20 µg/ml). After fixation (3.2% para-formaldehyde in PBS, pH 7.4, with 1.1% lysine and 0.24% NaIO4) and quenching with 50 mM glycine in PBS (21), the cells were incubated with 0.5 µg/ml Cy3 streptavidin, and mounted with mowiol (Hoechst) containing 29 mM n-propyl gallate (Sigma). Note that membrane proteins retain some lateral mobility after paraformaldehyde fixation, and can therefore be patched by streptavidin because of its super-high binding affinity and multivalent nature. Fluorescence microscopy and digital image acquisition (CC/CE 200 CCD camera, Photometrics) were described (21). For each field, fluorescein and Cy3 images were taken separately using highly selective filter sets; the two images were superimposed, exported to Photoshop (Adobe) and printed (21).

GST-Smad3 Kinase Assay-- The construction of cell line Mv1Lu-Flag-N-Smad3, Mv1Lu in which an N-terminally Flag-tagged Smad3 gene was stably expressed, was described elsewhere (28). GST-Smad3 (construct provided by Ying Zhang and Rik Derynck) (29) protein was prepared from bacterial lysate as described (30). Mv1Lu cells (Fig. 4A) were incubated in KRH/BSA for 30 min at 37 °C, followed by 5 min with or without 2 mM DTT. They were washed three times with KRH/BSA, and incubated with 100 pM unlabeled TGF-beta 1 (10 min, 37 °C). Cells were then washed and lysed in 1 ml of lysis buffer (150 mM NaCl, 1% Nonidet P-40, 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 50 mM NaF, 50 mM beta -glycerophosphate, 1 mM Na3VO3, 1 mM DTT, 5 mM EDTA, pH 8.0, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 1 mg/ml leupeptin, 10% glycerol). Supernatants were equalized for protein content and incubated with 2 µg of GST-Smad3 (3 h, 4 °C). The GST fusion protein was bound to 10 µl of glutathione beads that were washed three times with lysis buffer, then washed again with kinase buffer (50 mM NaCl, 20 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 12 mM MgCl2, 5 mM DTT) and subjected to an in vitro kinase reaction with 0.2 mM unlabeled ATP and 50 µCi [gamma -32P]ATP (20 µl, 30 °C, 30 min). For Fig. 4B, lysates from Mv1Lu-Flag-N-Smad3 cells treated similarly were immunoprecipitated with the anti-Tbeta RI antibody VPN (6), with or without 3 µg/ml competing peptide, before the incubation with GST-Smad3 and [gamma -32P]ATP under the above conditions. SDS-containing sample buffer was added, and the samples boiled to terminate the kinase reaction. Samples were analyzed by 8% SDS-PAGE.

    RESULTS

Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII Form Stable, Heterotrimeric, or Heterotetrameric Complexes-- We studied the size of the cell surface ligand-bound and cross-linked Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex using sucrose gradient velocity centrifugation, a technique we used previously to show that both receptors form homodimer-sized complexes in the endoplasmic reticulum (22). Cells were lysed with octyl-POE, a nonionic detergent with a density of 1 and a high CMC that enables analysis of the migration of detergent-solubilized proteins rather than of micelles (31). 125I-TGF-beta 1-bound and cross-linked Tbeta RII from COS7 cells transfected with Tbeta RII alone migrated with a peak centered at fraction 7, the position of a 150-kDa marker protein (Fig. 1A, top and bottom panels). Although absolute size determinations can be inaccurate for detergent-solubilized membrane proteins, this is consistent with a homodimer bound to one or more molecules of TGF-beta 1, as expected from previous gradient analysis and immunofluorescence (21, 22). Tbeta RII from COS7 cells cotransfected with both Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII (Fig. 1A, middle and bottom panels) and immunoprecipitated with an antibody against Tbeta RI, thus in a Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex, migrated more quickly with a peak centered around fraction 8, indicative of a heterotrimeric or tetrameric complex.


View larger version (52K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Type I and II receptors form stable heterotetrameric or trimeric complexes in COS7 and L6 cells. Cells were cross-linked to 125I-TGF-beta 1, lysed, and subjected to velocity centrifugation over sucrose gradients. A, COS7 cells were transfected with Tbeta RII alone (top panel) or together with Tbeta RI (middle panel). Fractions from the sucrose gradients were immunoprecipitated with anti-Tbeta RII (top) or anti-Tbeta RI (middle) and analyzed by SDS-PAGE. Migration of the type II receptor on each gradient was quantified and normalized to the peak value and is shown in the bottom panel. Size estimates (in kDa) are from size markers included in each gradient tube. Receptors from doubly transfected cells (middle) were immunoprecipitated with antibody against Tbeta RI, ensuring that all Tbeta RII measured is part of the complex and not from singly transfected cells. Quantification of the immunoprecipitated ligand-labeled type I receptor results in a nearly identical curve (data not shown). The broad nature of the peak for cells transfected with Tbeta RII alone may reflect some association of Tbeta RII with the small number of endogenous Tbeta RI found in COS7 cells. B, L6 cells were treated as in A, except that cells in the middle panel were treated with 2 mM DTT before ligand binding. Fractions were immunoprecipitated with anti-Tbeta RII. Migration of Tbeta RII (middle panel) or both receptors (top) on the gradients was quantified (bottom panel). Note that fraction numbers are comparable only within a given experiment, and that migration of markers for part A and part B was slightly different. Control experiments demonstrate that only minimal dissociation of receptor-bound but noncross-linked ligand occurred in detergent lysates over the 8 h required for centrifugation (data not shown).

L6 rat myoblasts, TGF-beta -responsive cells which lack the type III TGF-beta receptor, show similar receptor complexes. TGF-beta 1-bound type I and II receptors immunoprecipitated with an antibody against Tbeta RII both migrated with a peak centered at fraction 10, correlating with markers between 230 and 265 kDa (Fig. 1B, top and bottom panels), and consistent with a heterotetrameric or trimeric complex. Nearly identical results were obtained with TGF-beta 2 and with other cell lines, including Mv1Lu, HYB2, THP1, and GH3 (data not shown). Immunoprecipitation with an antibody against Tbeta RI (data not shown) gave similar results, indicating the absence of a significant population of ligand-bound Tbeta RII, which is not in a complex with Tbeta RI. Pretreatment of cells with DTT (Fig. 1B, middle and bottom panels) prevented ligand binding and cross-linking to Tbeta RI and slowed the migration of Tbeta RII to a peak centered around 155 kDa. The DTT-treated complex is likely a dimer (for comparison, see singly transfected COS cells in Fig. 1A), indicating disruption of the Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex under these conditions. DTT does not appear to affect Tbeta RII homodimers, a finding consistent with previous results (21). The DTT effect appears to be on the cross-linking of ligand to Tbeta RI rather than on cross-linking between Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII, because immunoprecipitation of Tbeta RI from DTT-treated cells following ligand binding and cross-linking showed the absence of ligand-labeled Tbeta RI (Fig. 3). Analogously, ligand binding and cross-linking after DTT treatment either to endogenous TGF-beta receptors (20) or to COS cells transiently expressing Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII (not shown) failed to reveal Tbeta RI labeling.

Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII Form a Ligand-dependent Complex in Live Cells-- To study the Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex in live cells, we used Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII carrying HA or Myc epitope tags at their extracellular termini for immunofluorescence co-patching, a technique that we developed and have described previously (21, 22). Briefly, a tagged receptor at the surface of live, unfixed cells (in the cold to avoid internalization) is forced into patches by a double layer of bivalent IgGs where the secondary antibody is coupled to one fluorophore (e.g. fluorescein, which emits green fluorescence). A second receptor, containing a different tag, is labeled by antibodies coupled to a second fluorophore (e.g. Cy3, red fluorescence). The cells are examined by fluorescence microscopy to determine whether the two receptors are swept into mutual (yellow) or separate (red or green) micropatches. We have employed this method successfully to demonstrate that all three TGF-beta receptors form ligand-independent homodimers (21, 22).

Fig. 2 shows the results of co-patching experiments performed on COS7 cells co-transfected with Tbeta RI-Myc and Tbeta RII-HA. The labeling specificity is high, as shown in a control experiment on cells transfected with Tbeta RI-Myc alone (Fig. 2A, inset); these cells show only Cy3 labeling. In the absence of ligand (Fig. 2A), 15-20% of the patches were mutual (yellow), although the majority were separate (either green or red). In the presence of 250 pM TGF-beta 1, the percentage of mutual patches markedly increased to 40-50% (Fig. 2B), demonstrating that Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII at the surface of live cells have an inherently low probability of forming heterocomplexes that is significantly enhanced by ligand binding. The fraction of a given receptor type in heterocomplexes is proportional to the number of yellow patches divided by the sum of yellow and red (for the red-labeled receptor type) or yellow and green (for green-labeled receptors). These fractions are similar for Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII (23-29% and 57-63% in the absence and presence of ligand, respectively), in accord with a 1:1 stoichiometric ratio in the heterocomplex.


View larger version (87K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   Type I/II hetero-oligomers are TGF-beta -dependent and DTT-independent in live cells. COS7 cells were co-transfected with Tbeta RI-Myc and Tbeta RII-HA (A-D), or with Tbeta RI-Myc alone (panel A, inset). 48 h after transfection, cells in (C) and (D) were pretreated with 2 mM DTT (15 min, 37 °C). The live cells were incubated in the cold with (B and D) or without (A and C) 250 pM TGF-beta 1 for 2 h, followed by successive incubations with a series of antibodies to mediate patching and fluorescent labeling (see "Experimental Procedures"). The labeling protocol results in Tbeta RI-Myc labeled by Cy3 (red), Tbeta RII-HA labeled by fluorescein (green), and mutual patches containing both receptors labeled yellow upon superposition of the two fluorescent images. Cells transfected with Tbeta RI-Myc alone (panel A, inset) are labeled exclusively with Cy3, demonstrating the labeling specificity. The numbers of red, green, and yellow patches were counted on the computer screen on 20 × 20 µm2 flat cell regions (avoiding the nucleus, which contains more nonspecific staining and is out of the focal plane) for several independent experiments. Bars, 20 µm.

Ligand binding and cross-linking to Tbeta RI co-expressed with Tbeta RII is abrogated by DTT pretreatment of cells (Ref. 20 and Fig. 1B, middle panel). DTT treatment, however, did not dissociate the ligand-independent Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complexes (around 20% co-patching), and did not affect the enhancement of heterocomplex formation by TGF-beta 1 (around 50% co-patching) (Fig. 2, C and D). The fraction of each receptor type in yellow patches also remained similar.

DTT Increases the Detergent Sensitivity of the Complex-- In contrast to the persistence of Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII heterocomplexes in DTT-treated live cells (Fig. 2, C and D), velocity sedimentation experiments showed that receptor heterocomplexes were disrupted by DTT (Fig. 1B). We suspected that this disparity resulted from destabilizing effects of the detergent used to solubilize the receptors for velocity sedimentation. We therefore examined the effect of various detergents on Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII co-immunoprecipitation from DTT-pretreated Mv1Lu cells (Fig. 3). Immunoprecipitation with an antibody against Tbeta RI (Fig. 3, right panel) was used to assess the integrity of the receptor complex in DTT-treated cells, because Tbeta RII residing in heterocomplexes would still be labeled by ligand and would co-precipitate with Tbeta RI even if the latter was unlabeled. Under the most stringent lysis conditions used (buffers 1-3), there was no co-immunoprecipitation, indicating the absence of intact heteromeric complexes after detergent solubilization. These results hold in different cell lines and with antibodies raised against different type I receptor epitopes (not shown). The same was also true with buffer 4, which was used for the velocity centrifugation experiment in Fig. 1B. With a fifth lysis buffer, however, we detected a small amount of intact Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex in the presence of DTT (Fig. 3, right panel, buffer 5), suggesting that buffer and detergent conditions determine the integrity of the complex in DTT-treated cells. Together with the demonstration of Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII heterocomplex formation in live cells pretreated with DTT (Fig. 2), these results suggest that DTT treatment alters the conformation of the heterocomplex formed; the altered complex is less stable (as reflected in its increased detergent sensitivity) and most likely has a different conformation, resulting in the failure of ligand binding and cross-linking to Tbeta RI.


View larger version (49K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Detergent susceptibility of Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII receptor complexes in DTT-treated cells. MV1Lu cells pretreated (+) or not (-) with 2 mM DTT were subjected to binding and cross-linking with 100 pM 125I-TGF-beta 1. Cells were then lysed in various lysis buffers: lane 1, 0.5% Triton X-100, 0.5% deoxycholic acid, 10 mM EDTA in PBS; lane 2, 0.75% Triton X-100, 0.5% deoxycholic acid, 10 mM EDTA in PBS; lane 3, 1% Triton X-100, 0.5% deoxycholic acid, 10 mM EDTA in PBS; lane 4, 2% octyl-POE in MNT; lane 5, 0.5% Triton X-100, 150 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 20 mM Tris, pH 7.4. One-tenth of each lysate was analyzed by SDS-PAGE without further treatment (not shown); one-half of the remainder was immunoprecipitated with anti-Tbeta RII (alpha -IIC), and the other half with anti-Tbeta RI (VPN).

DTT Pretreatment Prevents TGF-beta -induced Activation of the Type I Receptor-- In epithelial cells, an essential step in TGF-beta -mediated growth inhibition and PAI-1 promoter activation is activation of the ability of Tbeta RI to rapidly phosphorylate Smad3 at its C-terminal SSVS motif (28). Because DTT treatment did not block the ligand-mediated association of Tbeta RI with Tbeta RII, we examined the signaling capability of these complexes as reflected by their ability to phosphorylate Smad3 in vitro. Mv1Lu cells (untreated or pretreated with DTT) were exposed to TGF-beta 1 to allow heterocomplex formation and activation of Tbeta RI. In one study, lysates from these cells were incubated with recombinant GST-Smad3, and the isolated complex was subjected to an in vitro kinase reaction. In untreated cells (Fig. 4A, lanes 1 and 2), TGF-beta mediated a greater than 20-fold increase in Smad3 phosphorylation; two-dimensional tryptic mapping indicated that this in vitro phophorylation occurred at the same site as in vivo (data not shown). DTT-pretreated cells, however, showed no ligand-induced phosphorylation (Fig. 4A, lanes 3 and 4). Similar results (Fig. 4B) were obtained by first immunoprecipitating lysates with antibodies against Tbeta RI, then incubating the complexes with a GST-Smad3 fusion protein in an in vitro kinase reaction. Although there is background phosphorylation of the GST-Smad3 construct in this assay, peptide competition during the immunoprecipitation (Fig. 4B, lanes 5-8) eliminates all of the TGF-beta -inducible phosphorylation, indicating that Tbeta RI is responsible. Thus, the Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex formed after DTT treatment is inactive and cannot mediate the earliest step in TGF-beta downstream signaling phosphorylation of Smad3.


View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   DTT pretreatment blocks TGF-beta -mediated Smad3 phosphorylation. A, Mv1Lu cells were treated with (lanes 3 and 4) or without (lanes 1 and 2) 2 mM DTT (5 min, 37 °C). After extensive washing, they were incubated with (lanes 2 and 4) or without (lanes 1 and 3) 100 pM TGF-beta 1 (10 min, 37 °C). Cells were rapidly chilled and lysed. Cleared lysates were incubated with a GST-Smad3 fusion protein for 3 h. After retrieval of the fusion protein by glutathione beads, it was subjected to an in vitro kinase reaction then analyzed by SDS-PAGE. Control cells were allowed to bind 125I-TGF-beta 1 under the same conditions and were then cross-linked, lysed, and analyzed by SDS-PAGE; there was no binding of ligand to Tbeta RI in DTT-pretreated cells, confirming that the 10-min incubation period at 37 °C was not sufficient for arrival of significant amounts of non-DTT-exposed Tbeta RI at the cell surface (data not shown). B, Mv1Lu-Flag-N-Smad3 cells were treated as above, except lysates were immunoprecipitated with an anti-type I antibody (6) with (lanes 5-8) or without (lanes 1-4) 3 µg of competing peptide before incubation with the GST-Smad3 fusion protein.


    DISCUSSION

Our major findings are: 1) Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII form a stable, heteromeric complex, most likely a heterotetramer; 2) in live cells, the two receptors have an intrinsic affinity for each other that is markedly increased by TGF-beta exposure; and 3) DTT does not prevent the formation of this complex but increases its detergent sensitivity and blocks TGF-beta -induced activation of the type I receptor, as measured by its ability to phosphorylate Smad3.

We previously used velocity centrifugation to demonstrate that Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII each form homodimer-sized complexes in the endoplasmic reticulum (22). We use similar technology here to show that ligand-bound and cross-linked receptors in transfected COS7 cells and in L6 cells expressing native receptors form detergent-stable complexes whose size is consistent with heterotrimers or heterotetramers. In L6 cells (Fig. 1B), the migration of the Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex is consistent with a heterotetramer or heterotrimer bound to one TGF-beta molecule. In COS7 cells, the complex migrates significantly faster than a homodimeric complex (Fig. 1A, top panel) (22); the wide nature of the peak, and the shoulder at higher fractions, may be because of dissociation of larger complexes during centrifugation. Furthermore, co-patching results obtained in live cells (Fig. 2) are most consistent with a heterotetramer, the fractions of Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII in mutual patches are similar, as expected for a stoichiometric ratio of 1:1. It should be stressed, however, that a definite determination of the stoichiometric ratio depends on an accurate measurement of the surface levels of both receptors on the cells scored, which is not feasible by the current methods.

The tetrameric nature of the complex is also supported by data indicating that a dimer of Tbeta RII and more than one Tbeta RI reside in the heterocomplex. Evidence that there are two Tbeta RII in the complex comes from the demonstration by velocity centrifugation that treatment of cells with DTT results in a homodimer-sized complex of Tbeta RII. This suggests that there were two type II receptors in the original, heteromeric complex; otherwise, one must assume that the normally dimeric Tbeta RII (21, 22) is monomeric in the heterocomplex and reassociates to form dimers after DTT treatment and detergent solubilization. Type I receptors, which are homodimers when expressed alone and remain dimeric after DTT treatment, (22) are likely to be multimeric in the active complex, as indicated by experiments demonstrating the existence of functionally complementary Tbeta RI mutants (23). Taken together, the sedimentation velocity, co-patching, and functional complementation studies imply that the signaling TGF-beta receptor complex contains two Tbeta RI and two Tbeta RII polypeptides.

We provide the first evidence in live cells that the formation of the Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex is TGF-beta -dependent (Fig. 2, A and B). Previous studies have demonstrated the TGF-beta dependence of the Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII heterocomplex but used receptors in detergent lysates, leaving open the possibility that TGF-beta stabilized the complex in detergent but did not induce its formation (8, 9, 11). Co-patching studies examining heterocomplex formation in the intact plasma membrane show a marked increase in mutual aggregates in the presence of TGF-beta 1. There is, however, an intrinsic affinity between the two receptors, as demonstrated by the 15-20% that reside in mutual aggregates in the absence of TGF-beta (Fig. 2A). Although these experiments used cells overexpressing the transfected receptors, as required for visualization by immunofluorescence, there are several indications that the heterocomplexes observed are not the result of high expression levels. The co-patching experiments examine single cells under the microscope, and the use of double labeling by IgG or biotin/streptavidin enhancement enabled us to analyze cells expressing as few as 15,000 surface receptors (evaluated by photomultiplier-based measurement of the fluorescence intensity on cells expressing known receptor levels, as described by Henis et al. (21)). These cells, with receptor levels higher but of the same order of magnitude as untransfected cells, yielded the same co-patching results as cells expressing receptor levels 10-fold higher. In addition, in all cases where the level and percentage of higher complexes formed were high enough to allow detection by ultracentrifugation in untransfected cells expressing the receptors (including ligand-labeled Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII heterocomplexes in the current work, and Tbeta RI or Tbeta RII homodimers in earlier studies) (22), a good agreement was obtained between the results on these cells and on transiently expressing COS cells. Furthermore, the results obtained in co-patching experiments depended on the receptor types examined, with low co-patching for type II/type III TGF-beta receptor heterodimers versus high co-patching levels for Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII homodimers (21, 22). This emphasizes the specificity of the interactions measured. We note, however, that COS cells overexpressing Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII exhibit some ligand-independent receptor phosphorylation (18), raising the possibility that the number of Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complexes is larger in this system than in cells expressing the receptors endogenously.

The ligand-independent association of a fraction of Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII is consistent with our previous finding that TGF-beta 2, unlike TGF-beta 1, binds to a preformed complex of Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII (19). Such preformed complexes do not appear to mediate TGF-beta -independent signal transduction,4 raising the question whether the role of ligand is to increase the number of complexes or to effect a necessary and stabilizing conformational change. A recent model of the Tbeta RI ectodomain (based on certain cysteine motifs shared with protectin (CD59)) proposes that its surface has two distinct binding sites, one each for ligand and Tbeta RII (32). This model is in agreement with the finding shown in Fig. 2 that there is an intrinsic affinity between Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII, which is increased by TGF-beta .

To further investigate the relationship between TGF-beta -mediated heterocomplex formation and signaling, we studied the effects of DTT treatment on complex stability and its ability to phosphorylate Smad3 in vitro. Pretreatment with DTT prevents TGF-beta binding and cross-linking to the type I receptor (8, 20). We demonstrate that it also increases the detergent susceptibility of the complex (Figs. 1B and 3), and blocks TGF-beta -induced activation of the ability of Tbeta RI to phosphorylate Smad3 in vitro (Fig. 4) but does not change the percentage of Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII in mutual complexes with or without TGF-beta 1 (Fig. 2). The observation that multiple cross-linkers, including difluorodinitrobenzene (with a spacer length of 3Å) can cross-link TGF-beta to Tbeta RI suggests that cross-linking results reflect direct binding of ligand to Tbeta RI rather than their fortuitous proximity within a complex.4 Our DTT data therefore suggest that either a specific Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex conformation, destroyed by DTT, or direct ligand binding to Tbeta RI are required for signal transduction. It is unclear whether ligand binding to Tbeta RI stabilizes the complex with Tbeta RII or serves a different function altogether.

Our data agree only in part with a previously published report that DTT pretreatment does not affect type I receptor phosphorylation and does not measurably alter the amount of ligand-bound and cross-linked Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex in detergent lysates (33). Although we found that TGF-beta 1 can mediate heterocomplex formation after DTT treatment, especially in intact cells (Fig. 2), we have been able to demonstrate at most a small percentage of Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex using the same detergent lysis conditions as these investigators (see Fig. 3, lysis buffer 5), in accord with a second report (6). In some of the experiments by Vivien and Wrana (33), the antibody used was against a C-terminal epitope of Tbeta RI that has significant sequence identity to other type I receptors (34); however, antibody cross-reactivity could not explain all the differences between their results and ours.

These results raise interesting questions about the stoichiometry of TGF-beta receptors in the signaling complex. Although our data are most consistent with a heterotetrameric (Tbeta RI)2(Tbeta RII)2 receptor complex, and we have obtained similar results with several cell lines, there are suggestions in the literature that the stoichiometry of the complex may vary. For example, the ratio of Tbeta RI to Tbeta RII in microvascular endothelial cells was significantly higher in three-dimensional versus two-dimensional cultures, corresponding to increasing resistance to the anti-proliferative but not the matrix-inducing effects of TGF-beta (35). In other cell types, including bone, the ratio of type I to type II receptors may also be important, particularly in differentiating growth inhibition from other effects of TGF-beta (36-38). The migration over sucrose gradients of the Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII complex from nonepithelial cell systems remains to be determined.

The number of ligand molecules in the complex is not known. The most likely possibilities are one TGF-beta homodimer, each subunit bound to a type I and a type II receptor, or two ligand homodimers, each subunit bound to one of the four receptors in a presumed heterotetramer. The sucrose gradient data presented here show a surprisingly small increase in complex size when Tbeta RI is added to TGF-beta -bound Tbeta RII, suggesting that the addition of Tbeta RI to Tbeta RII is not accompanied by the recruitment of additional ligand molecules.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TGF-beta 1 was a kind gift of R&D Biosystems. We are grateful to Ying Zhang and Rik Derynck (UCSF) for the GST-Smad3 construct and to Ralph Lin for comments on the manuscript.

    FOOTNOTES

* This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants CA63260 (to H. F. L.) and DK02290 (to R. G. W.) and by grants from the Israel Science Foundation administered by the Israel Academy of Arts and Sciences and from the Israel Cancer Research Fund (to Y. I. H.).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.

c  These authors contributed equally to this work.

d  Current address: Dept. of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, P. O. Box 208019, New Haven, CT 06520.

f  Recipient of a fellowship from the Clore Scholars Programme.

g  Supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Robert Steel Foundation for Pediatric Cancer Research.

h  Supported by a National Institutes of Health postdoctoral fellowship.

j  To whom correspondence should be addressed: The Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, 9 Cambridge Ctr., Cambridge, MA 02142. Tel.: 617-258-5216; Fax: 617-258-6768; E-mail: lodish{at}wi.mit.edu.

2 R. Perlman and R. A. Weinberg, personal communication.

3 C. Rodriguez, R. Lin, R. G. Wells, P. Scherer, and H. F. Lodish, manuscript in preparation.

4 R. G. Wells and H. F. Lodish, unpublished results.

    ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used are: TGF-beta , transforming growth factor-beta ; Tbeta RI, Tbeta RII, Tbeta RIII, types I, II, and III TGF-beta receptors; octyl-POE, n-octylpolyoxyethylene; DTT, dithiothreitol; PAGE, polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; MES, 4-morpholineethanesulfonic acid; GST, glutathione S-transferase; HA, hemagglutinin.

    REFERENCES
Top
Abstract
Introduction
References
  1. Roberts, A. B., and Sporn, M. B. (1990) in Peptide Growth Factors and Their Receptors I (Sporn, M. B., and Roberts, A. B., eds), Vol. 95/I, pp. 419-472, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg
  2. Kingsley, D. M. (1994) Genes Dev. 8, 133-146[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Attisano, L., Wrana, J. L., Lopez-Casillas, F., and Massague, J. (1994) Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1222, 71-80[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Heldin, C.-H., Miyazono, K., and ten Dijke, P. (1997) Nature 390, 465-471[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Massague, J., and Weis-Garcia, F. (1996) Cancer Surv. 27, 41-64[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Franzen, P., ten Dijke, P., Ichijo, H., Yamashita, H., Schulz, P., Heldin, C. H., and Miyazono, K. (1993) Cell 75, 681-692[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Laiho, M., Weis, F. M. B., Boyd, F. T., Ignotz, R. A., and Massague, J. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 9108-9112[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Wrana, J. L., Attisano, L., Carcamo, J., Zentella, A., Doody, J., Laiho, M., Wang, X. F., and Massague, J. (1992) Cell 71, 1003-1014[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Wrana, J. L., Attisano, L., Wieser, R., Ventura, F., and Massague, J. (1994) Nature 370, 341-347[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Lin, H. Y., Wang, X. F., Ng-Eaton, E., Weinberg, R. A., and Lodish, H. F. (1992) Cell 68, 775-785[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Moustakas, A., Lin, H. Y., Henis, Y. I., Plamondon, J., O'Connor-McCourt, M. D., and Lodish, H. F. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268, 22215-22218[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Vivien, D., Attisano, L., Wrana, J. L., and Massague, J. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 7134-7141[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Luo, K., and Lodish, H. F. (1996) EMBO J. 15, 4485-4496[Abstract]
  14. Okadome, T., Yamashita, H., Franzen, P., Moren, A., Heldin, C. H., and Miyazono, K. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 30753-30756[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Anders, R. A., and Leof, E. B. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 21758-21766[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Muramatsu, M., Yan, J., Eto, K., Tomoda, T., Yamada, R., and Arai, K. (1997) Mol. Biol. Cell 8, 469-480[Abstract]
  17. Ventura, F., Doody, J., Liu, F., Wrana, J. L., and Massague, J. (1994) EMBO J. 13, 5581-5589[Abstract]
  18. Chen, F., and Weinberg, R. A. (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92, 1565-1569[Abstract]
  19. Rodriguez, C., Chen, F., Weinberg, R. A., and Lodish, H. F. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 15919-15922[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Cheifetz, S., and Massague, J. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 20767-20772[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Henis, Y. I., Moustakas, A., Lin, H. Y., and Lodish, H. F. (1994) J. Cell Biol. 126, 139-154[Abstract]
  22. Gilboa, L., Wells, R. G., Lodish, H. F., and Henis, Y. I. (1998) J. Cell Biol. 140, 767-777[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Weis-Garcia, F., and Massague, J. (1996) EMBO J. 15, 276-289[Abstract]
  24. Yamashita, H., ten Dijke, P., Franzen, P., Miyazono, K., and Heldin, C. H. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 20172-20178[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Wells, R. G., Yankelev, H., Lin, H. Y., and Lodish, H. F. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 11444-11451[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Henis, Y. I., Gutman, O., and Loyter, A. (1985) Exp. Cell Res. 160, 514-526[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Kurkela, R., Vuolas, L., and Vihko, P. (1988) J. Immunol. Methods 110, 229-236[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Liu, X., Sun, Y., Constantinescu, S. N., Karam, E., Weinberg, R. A., and Lodish, H. F. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 10669-10674[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Zhang, Y., Feng, X.-H., Wu, R.-Y., and Derynck, R. (1996) Nature 383, 168-172[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Guan, K. L., and Dixon, J. E. (1991) Anal. Biochem. 192, 262-267[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Garavito, R. M., and Rosenbusch, J. P. (1986) Methods Enzymol. 125, 309-328[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Jokiranta, T. S., Tissari, J., Teleman, O., and Meri, S. (1995) FEBS Lett. 376, 31-36[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Vivien, D., and Wrana, J. L. (1995) Exp. Cell Res. 221, 60-65[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. ten Dijke, P., Ichijo, H., Franzen, P., Schulz, P., Saras, J., Toyoshima, H., Heldin, C. H., and Miyazono, K. (1993) Oncogene 8, 2879-2887[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Sankar, S., Mahooti-Brooks, N., Bensen, L., McCarthy, T. L., Centrella, M., and Madri, J. A. (1996) J. Clin. Invest. 97, 1436-1446[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Centrella, M., Casinghino, S., Kim, J., Pham, T., Rosen, V., Wozney, J., and McCarthy, T. L. (1995) Mol. Cell. Biol. 15, 3273-3281[Abstract]
  37. Mulder, K. M., Segarini, P. R., Morris, S. L., Ziman, J. M., and Choi, H. G. (1993) J. Cell. Physiol. 154, 162-174[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. McCaffrey, T. A., Consigli, S., Du, B., Falcone, D. J., Sanborn, T. A., Spokojny, A. M., and Bush, H. L., Jr. (1995) J. Clin. Invest. 96, 2667-2675[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]


Copyright © 1999 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.