Transforming Growth Factor-beta Receptor-associated Protein 1 Is a Smad4 Chaperone*

Jens U. WurthnerDagger , David B. FrankDagger , Angelina FeliciDagger , Harry M. GreenDagger , Zhouhong CaoDagger , Michael D. Schneider§, James G. McNally, Robert J. Lechleider||, and Anita B. RobertsDagger **

From the Dagger  Laboratory of Cell Regulation and Carcinogenesis and  Laboratory of Receptor Biology and Gene Expression, NCI, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, the § Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030, and the || Department of Pharmacology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Received for publication, July 20, 2000, and in revised form, February 14, 2001


    ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Members of the transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta ) superfamily signal through unique cell membrane receptor serine-threonine kinases to activate downstream targets. TRAP1 is a previously described 96-kDa cytoplasmic protein shown to bind to TGF-beta receptors and suggested to play a role in TGF-beta signaling. We now fully characterize the binding properties of TRAP1, and show that it associates strongly with inactive heteromeric TGF-beta and activin receptor complexes and is released upon activation of signaling. Moreover, we demonstrate that TRAP1 plays a role in the Smad-mediated signal transduction pathway, interacting with the common mediator, Smad4, in a ligand-dependent fashion. While TRAP1 has only a small stimulatory effect on TGF-beta signaling in functional assays, deletion constructs of TRAP1 inhibit TGF-beta signaling and diminish the interaction of Smad4 with Smad2. These are the first data to identify a specific molecular chaperone for Smad4, suggesting a model in which TRAP1 brings Smad4 into the vicinity of the receptor complex and facilitates its transfer to the receptor-activated Smad proteins.


    INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Ligands of the TGF-beta 1 superfamily regulate a variety of physiologic and pathologic processes such as embryogenesis, wound healing, tissue homeostasis, fibrosis, and immunomodulation (1). Signal transduction by these ligands is initiated by their association with a type-II receptor serine-threonine kinase, which then recruits and transphosphorylates a type-I receptor, also a transmembrane serine-threonine kinase (2). Transphosphorylation of the type I receptor by the type II receptor takes place on several residues in a glycine-serine-rich juxtamembrane domain and leads to activation of the receptor and downstream signaling events (3).

In a recently described direct signaling pathway, the activated type-I receptor associates with and phosphorylates a family of receptor-activated Smad proteins, which then dissociate from the receptor, hetero-oligomerize with a common partner Smad4, and translocate to the nucleus, where they take part in transcriptional activation of target genes (4-6). In addition, extensive cross-talk between the Smad pathway and other signal transduction cascades has been demonstrated, notably the JAK-STAT pathway (7), mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways (8-10) as well as the vitamin D signaling pathway (11), the glucocorticoid receptor pathway (12), and the Wnt pathway (13).

Efforts to elucidate TGF-beta signaling pathways have resulted in the identification of a number of other non-Smad proteins which interact directly with Tbeta RI and/or Tbeta RII, including SARA (14), STRAP (15), FKBP12 (16), the alpha  subunit of farnesyl transferase (17), TRIP-1 (18), and the Balpha subunit of phosphatase 2A (19). Functional roles in TGF-beta signal transduction have been proposed for them but remain controversial (2, 19-22). Of these, SARA, which has been shown to facilitate Smad2/3 recruitment to the activated Tbeta RI (14), is the only protein directly shown to modulate the Smad signaling pathway.

Recently, a novel protein called TRAP1 was identified in a yeast two-hybrid screen for a protein interacting with a mutationally activated Tbeta RI (23). Indeed, the C-terminal portion of TRAP1 (Delta TRAP1) was shown to interact specifically with mutationally or ligand-activated Tbeta RI but not with the quiescent receptor, suggesting that it might participate in signal transduction from the Tbeta RI. In functional assays, Delta TRAP1 acted as an inhibitor of TGF-beta -mediated effects, suggesting that it might play a role in modulating this signal transduction pathway.

To better understand the biological role of TRAP1, we have now expressed the full-length molecule, and used biochemical and functional assays to show that TRAP1 differs in its binding characteristics from the previously published Delta TRAP1 in that it predominantly associates with receptor complexes that are signaling deficient. Moreover, we show that TRAP1 specifically interacts with Smad4 and provide data suggesting that it functions as a chaperone for Smad4 in TGF-beta signal transduction.

    EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Cell Lines and Transfections-- COS-1, HepG2, and NMuMg cells were maintained in high glucose-Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum, 100 units of penicillin/ml, and 100 µg of streptomycin/ml. Cells were transfected with the constructs indicated using LipofectAMINE (Life Technologies), Superfect (Quiagen), or FUGENE (Roche Molecular Biochemicals) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Transfection protocols were generated using Cellputer Software.2

Construction of Plasmids-- Epitope-tagged TRAP1 and TRAP1 deletion constructs were polymerase chain reaction-amplified from pCDNA3-TRAP1 using the Roche Molecular Biochemical ExpandTM High Fidelity PCR System and cloned into the mammalian expression vector pEFcx (gift from Dr. C. Hill), a derivative of pEF-BOS with a modified multiple cloning site, as well as into pEGFP (CLONTECH). For bacterial expression of GST-tagged fusion proteins, Delta TRAP1 was subcloned into the pGEX4T3 vector. Smad4-MH2 was cloned into pCDNA4HisMax (InVitrogen) for in vitro translation. All constructs were sequence confirmed.

Immunoprecipitation and Immunoblotting-- COS-1 cells were plated in 100-mm plates at 1.5 × 106 cells/plate and grown overnight. Cells were then transiently transfected with epitope-tagged receptors (HA), TRAP1 (Flag, Myc, or EGFP), and/or Smad4 (Myc) and/or Smad2 (Flag) as indicated and incubated for 24 h in maintenance medium as described above, followed by another incubation period of 12-16 h in low serum medium (0.2% fetal calf serum). Subsequently, the cells were washed twice with ice-cold phosphate-buffered saline and lysed in a buffer containing 25 mM HEPES (pH 7.5), 100 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 5 mM EDTA, and 1% Triton X-100 supplemented with the protease inhibitors pepstatin (1 µg/ml), 4-(2-aminoethyl)benzenesulfonyl fluoride (500 µg/ml), phosphatase inhibitors NaF (50 mM), and sodium orthovanadate (1 mM). Lysates were cleared by centrifugation and then subjected to immunoprecipitation using monoclonal anti-HA antibody (CA12-5), monoclonal anti-Myc (9E10) antibody, or polyclonal anti-Myc (Santa-Cruz A14) antibody, followed by adsorption to protein G-Sepharose. Protein-G beads were then washed in lysis buffer for 5 times, boiled with sample buffer (NOVEX, containing 5% mercaptoethanol), and loaded onto precast SDS gels (NOVEX). Blotting was done utilizing ImmobilonTM polyvinylidene difluoride membranes, which were subsequently blocked overnight at 4 °C with 5% skim milk in TBS-T buffer. Proteins were visualized by Western blotting with anti-HA, anti-Flag (M2), anti-Myc, and anti-GFP (Zymed Laboratories Inc. mouse monoclonal) antibodies.

In Vitro Transcription/Translation-- In vitro transcription/translation was carried out using commercially available reticulocyte lysates (InVitrogen) according to the manufacturer's instructions. In short, Smad4 constructs under the control of T7 promoters were incubated with the reticulocyte lysates in the presence of 20 mCi of [35S]methionine (PerkinElmer Life Sciences) for 90 min at 30 °C and subsequently incubated with GST-tagged Delta TRAP1 bound to glutathione-agarose. Following washes in a buffer described for the immunoprecipitation studies, beads were boiled with sample buffer (NOVEX, containing 5% mercaptoethanol) and loaded onto precast SDS gels (NOVEX). Visualization was done by autoradiography.

Subcellular Localization by Immunofluorescent Confocal Microscopy-- COS-1 cells were plated onto sterilized glass coverslips (Corning) on day 0, transiently transfected on day 1, serum-starved overnight on day 2, and processed on day 3. Following treatment, cells were fixed in 3.5% paraformaldehyde, permeabilized with 0.5% Triton X-100 in phosphate-buffered saline for 10 min, and incubated for 30 min at room temperature with either of the following primary antibodies: 12CA5 anti-HA mouse monoclonal antibody (1:1000, own production) or M2 anti-Flag mouse monoclonal antibody (1:1000, Sigma). Cells were washed 3 times with phosphate-buffered saline prior to incubation with another primary antibody and then incubated for 30 min with the following secondary antibodies: fluorescein isothiocyanate-conjugated goat anti-mouse antibody (Kirkegaard & Perry, 1:1000) and rhodamine-conjugated goat anti-rabbit antibody (Jackson ImmonoResearch, 1:1000). Cells were mounted with medium containing 4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole and then visualized with a Zeiss confocal microscope.

Reporter Assays-- HepG2 cells or COS-1 cells (3.5 × 105 cells/well) were seeded into six-well tissue culture plates. Cells were transfected using Superfect (Quiagen) or Fugene (Roche Molecular Biochemicals), respectively, according to the manufacturer's instructions with the indicated amounts of DNA. Cells were co-transfected with either with a 3TP-Luciferase reporter (gift from J. Massaguè) or a SBE driven Luciferase reporter (gift from S. Kern). 24 h later, cells were shifted into low serum with or without TGF-beta (5 ng/ml). Where indicated, luciferase activity was measured following 12-18 h of incubation using a commercially available kit (Pharmingen) and normalized to beta -galactosidase expression.

    RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

TRAP1 Interacts Predominantly with Inactive Tbeta RI·Tbeta RII Complexes and Dissociates from Activated Receptor Complexes-- To investigate interactions of TRAP1 with TGF-beta receptors, we have expressed the full-length molecule together with combinations of wild type and kinase-deficient Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII in vivo. COS-1 cells were transiently transfected with epitope-tagged receptor (HA) and TRAP1 (Flag) constructs, and cell lysates were analyzed by immunoprecipitation and Western blotting. In cells that overexpress only Tbeta RI, a weak interaction of full-length TRAP1 can be demonstrated with the kinase-deficient mutant but not the wild type receptor (Figs. 1A and 2A). In cells overexpressing only Tbeta RII, TRAP1 interacts with either wild type or kinase-deficient receptors, showing a stronger association with the kinase-deficient Tbeta RII (Figs. 1A and 2B). When both Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII are overexpressed simultaneously, in various combinations of wild type and kinase-deficient forms, TRAP1 binds most strongly to those complexes in which at least one of the receptors has been mutationally inactivated (Fig. 1B), making the complex incapable of signaling. A direct effect of TGF-beta on association of TRAP1 with wild type receptor combinations could not be demonstrated (Fig. 1B), most likely due to a ligand-independent activation of the receptor complex in the context of overexpression of wild type receptors (20, 24), a phenomenon which we have confirmed in functional assays (Fig. 3C, and data not shown).


View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Interaction pattern of TRAP1 and various TGF-beta superfamily receptors. A and B, COS-1 cells were transiently transfected with Flag-TRAP1 or Flag-Delta TRAP1 in combination with HA-Tbeta RI (wt), HA-Tbeta RI (K232R, kinase deficient, KD) or HA-Tbeta RI (T204D, mutationally activated, a*), and/or Tbeta RII (wt) or Tbeta RII (K277R, KD). 30 h after transfection, cells were serum starved for 12 h in the absence or presence of 10 ng/ml TGF-beta 1 as indicated (B only). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-HA antibody and blotted with anti-Flag antibodies. C and D, TRAP1 co-localizes with TGF-beta receptors in the absence of signaling. COS-1 cells were transiently transfected with both KD receptors (C) or with Tbeta RII and activated Tbeta RI (a*) (D). After a 24-36-h incubation period, the cells were fixed, subjected to immunochemistry with primary antibodies against the Flag and HA epitopes, and secondary antibodies linked to fluorescein isothiocyanate or rhodamine dyes, and mounted with medium containing 4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI). Magnification: ×63.

We also examined the intracellular localization of TRAP1 and TGF-beta receptors using epitope-tagged proteins and indirect immunofluorescence to confirm the above observations. In order to avoid ligand-independent activation of the signaling cascade, we again utilized mutationally activated and kinase-deficient forms of Tbeta RI to simulate the presence and absence of TGF-beta signal, as described for the immunoprecipitation assays. As shown in Fig. 1C, TRAP1 co-localizes with TGF-beta receptors when the receptors are mutationally inactivated, displaying the same patchy distribution pattern previously reported for the receptor complex (14, 25, 26). In the presence of constitutively activated receptors, however, the intracellular distribution of TRAP1 changes from the patchy pattern to a more diffuse pattern (Fig. 1D). This correlates with a reduction in the degree of TRAP1-receptor association consistent with that observed in immunoprecipitation/Western blotting. Taken together, these data suggest that TRAP1 associates with the TGF-beta receptor complex and that the type II receptor is the primary binding partner. The fact that associations are strongest in the presence of kinase-deficient receptors suggests that activation of signaling through the TGF-beta receptor complex results in dissociation of TRAP1 from this complex, in striking distinction to previously published data for the C-terminal fragment of TRAP1, Delta TRAP1 (23).

TRAP1 Associates Only with Type II Receptors of the TGF-beta and Activin Pathways, Whereas Its Pattern of Binding to Type I Receptors Is Less Restricted-- To determine whether the interactions of TRAP1 were specific to the TGF-beta receptors Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII, we next examined the ability of TRAP1 to bind to other members of the TGF-beta superfamily of receptors. As shown in Fig. 2A, TRAP1 associates also with several kinase-deficient type I receptors, specifically with ALK1, BMPR-IA (ALK3), ActRI (ALK4), and the Tbeta RI (ALK5), but not with the ALK2 receptor and only minimally with BMPR-IB (ALK6). With the exception of the binding of TRAP1 to ALK3, these data suggest that TRAP1 is likely to be involved in both TGF-beta and activin but less likely in BMP signaling.


View larger version (63K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   TRAP1 associates with distinct type II and type I receptors of the TGF-beta superfamily of ligands. Using the same experimental conditions as in the legend to Fig. 1, A and B, TRAP1 was co-transfected with various KD type I (A) or wild type and KD type II (B) receptors with HA or Flag tags and coimmunoprecipitated with Flag- or Myc-tagged TRAP1.

Since the primary binding partner for TRAP1 is the type II receptor, we tested the association of TRAP1 with various other type II receptors. Interestingly, only Tbeta RII and the activin type IIB receptor associate with TRAP1, whereas the BMP type II receptor does not (Fig. 2B). To explore the binding of TRAP1 to the activin receptors more fully, we examined the pattern of binding of TRAP1 to both wild type and kinase-deficient forms of ActRIIB. In contrast to the pattern observed with Tbeta RII, where the binding of TRAP1 was clearly stronger to the kinase-deficient form of the receptor (Fig. 1A and Fig. 3A), we observed equal binding of TRAP1 to either active or inactive forms of ActRIIB (Fig. 3A). Similar to that observed with the TGF-beta receptor complex, activation of the complex by overexpression of the constitutively activated form of ALK4 led to nearly complete dissociation of TRAP1 from the receptor complex. In an attempt to understand the basis of the difference in the comparative binding of TRAP1 to the wild type and kinase-deficient forms of Tbeta RII and ActRIIB, we examined the effect of overexpression of each of these receptor constructs on the activity of the TGF-beta /activin responsive 3TP-Lux reporter (28) (Fig. 3B). The ability of wild type Tbeta RII but not ActRIIB to activate signaling when overexpressed in this cellular context mirrors the apparent differential binding of TRAP1 to the wild type- and kinase-deficient forms of these two receptors and suggests that partial dissociation of TRAP1 from wild type Tbeta RII underlies its apparently stronger binding to inactive Tbeta RII. Whether the selective ability of Tbeta RII to activate signaling in COS-1 cells results from an autocrine loop or from differential expression of ALK5 compared with ALK4 is not known.


View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   The apparent binding of TRAP1 to Tbeta RII and ActRIIB is signal-dependent. A, GFP-tagged TRAP1 was co-transfected either with the wild type (wt) or kinase-deficient (KD) forms of Tbeta RII (HA-tagged, lanes 1 and 2) or ActRIIB (flag-tagged, lanes 3-7) with or without either kinase-deficient (KD, lane 6) or activated (a*, lane 7) ALK4. Lysates were immunoprecipitated with either anti-HA (lanes 1 and 2) or anti-Flag antibody (lanes 3-7), and co-precipitating TRAP1 was probed with anti-GFP. The expression levels of TRAP1 and the receptor constructs are shown as loading controls. Note that in contrast to the apparently stronger binding of TRAP1 to the kinase-deficient form of Tbeta RII, its binding to ActRIIB is independent of this inactivating mutation. B, Tbeta RII but not ActRIIB activates the transcription of the TGF-beta /activin-responsive 3TP-Lux reporter. The ability of transfected wild type and kinase-deficient forms of Tbeta RII and ActRIIB to trigger the corresponding signaling pathways was assessed by activation of the 3TP-Lux reporter, under the experimental conditions described in panel A. Note that Tbeta RII significantly activates transcriptional responses with the same order of potency of activated ALK4. In contrast ActRIIB elicits transcriptional responses only modestly higher than that of negative control and kinase-deficient ActRIIB and Tbeta RII. Results are expressed as ratio of luciferase activity (relative light units) to beta -galactosidase activity and are representative of three independent experiments. Error bars represent standard deviation; where no error bars are visible, the error is too small to be shown.

Full-length TRAP1 Contains Multiple Receptor-binding Domains, and Single Domains Show Reduced Binding Specificity-- To establish the domains of TRAP1 involved in its binding to Tbeta RII, C- and N-terminal deletion constructs and a middle region construct (Fig. 4A) were used in immunoprecipitation assays. As shown in Fig. 4B, full-length TRAP1, Delta MC-TRAP1 (amino acids 1-215), Delta NM-TRAP1 (amino acids 651-860), Delta NC-TRAP1 (amino acids 238-536), and Delta TRAP1 (amino acids 474-860) co-immunoprecipitate with Tbeta RII. It is noteworthy that binding of each of the deletion constructs is severalfold stronger than that of the wild type molecule, suggesting a complex conformational regulation of these binding domains. Even under stringent washing conditions (500 mM NaCl buffer), strong binding of all regions to Tbeta RII(KD) was detectable (data not shown). Since both the C-terminal deleted construct Delta MC-TRAP1 and the N-terminal deleted construct Delta NM-TRAP1 as well as the middle region Delta NC-TRAP1 all bind strongly to Tbeta RII, there are at least three binding sites for interaction of TRAP1 with the receptor.


View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   TRAP1 interacts with Tbeta RII through multiple domains. A, schematic representation of the truncation mutants in relation to the full-length (wild type) TRAP1 molecule. The constructs shown are used for experiments in B, and in Figs. 5 and 8. B, HA-tagged, kinase-deficient Tbeta RII was coexpressed with Myc-tagged TRAP1 and Flag-tagged TRAP1 deletion constructs and subjected to immunoprecipitation with anti-HA and probed with peroxidase-linked anti-Myc (left IP panel) or anti-Flag (right IP panel) antibody. Expression of all constructs is shown by SDS-PAGE and Western blotting of equal amounts of total cell lysates (left middle panel, anti-Myc; right middle panel, anti-Flag; lower panel, anti-HA as indicated). C, interaction pattern of Delta TRAP1 with various TGF-beta superfamily receptors. In a similar experimental approach as outlined for Fig. 1, cells were transfected with TGF-beta superfamily receptors as indicated and co-transfected with Delta TRAP1, followed by immunoprecipitation and Western blotting. Cells in lane 5 were stimulated with TGF-beta 1 (10 ng/ml).

Since the association data for the full-length TRAP1 described in the legend to Fig. 1 differ from those previously described for the C-terminal Delta TRAP1, we also investigated the interaction pattern of this truncated protein with Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII. In our hands, Delta TRAP1 neither showed any preferential binding to activated, wild type, or inactivated TGF-beta receptors nor did it discriminate between Tbeta RI and Tbeta RII, as shown in Fig. 4C, in striking distinction from the pattern shown for the full-length molecule. Since overexpression of either Tbeta RII or the activated form of Tbeta RI are sufficient to induce signaling, these data demonstrate that Delta TRAP1, unlike full-length TRAP1, does not dissociate from the active signaling receptor complex.

Full-length TRAP1 Slightly Stimulates TGF-beta Signaling-- Initial functional studies of Delta TRAP1 by Charng et al. (23) showed an inhibitory effect on TGF-beta induced activity of the 3TP-Lux reporter, suggesting a functional role of the molecule in TGF-beta signaling. Based on the different interaction patterns of full-length TRAP1 and Delta TRAP1 molecules with the TGF-beta receptors, we investigated whether their functional roles might also differ, and specifically whether Delta TRAP1 might function as a dominant negative mutant of the full-length molecule. HepG2 cells were transiently transfected with the indicated TRAP1 constructs and the SBE luciferase reporter, consisting of 4 tandem repeats of the Smad-binding element CAGA (29) or the 3TP-Lux reporter (data not shown). Stimulation with TGF-beta resulted in activation of luciferase activity with either promoter (Fig. 5 and data not shown). Addition of TRAP1 slightly enhanced luciferase activity, whereas Delta TRAP1 consistently inhibited luciferase activity, as shown previously (23). Similar results were observed in NMuMg cells with the 3TP-Lux reporter (data not shown).


View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5.   Expression of TRAP1 and Delta TRAP1, respectively, enhances or inhibits TGF-beta -dependent reporter activity. HepG2 cells were transiently transfected with the SBE4-lux reporter and increasing concentrations of Flag-tagged TRAP1 and Delta TRAP1 constructs as indicated. pCDNA3 was used to adjust the total amount of DNA to equal amounts in each well. Cells were subsequently grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum for 24 h and then incubated with and without TGF-beta at 10 ng/ml for 16 h. Luciferase activity was measured in arbitrary units (relative light units) and the data expressed as relative light units ± S.E. For a schematic of the deletion constructs, see Fig. 4A.

These results distinguish functionally the full-length TRAP1 molecule and its N-terminal deletion mutant Delta TRAP1. We propose that the relatively minor effect of the full-length molecule might be due to its abundance within the cell, making it a non-limiting component in the signal transduction pathway. In this respect, TRAP1 behaves like SARA, which was shown to have little effect on reporter gene activity (3TP-Lux and ARE-Lux) as a full-length molecule, but which was inhibitory in its truncated and functionally inactive forms (14).

Activation of the TGF-beta Receptor Complex Leads to Dissociation of TRAP1 from the Receptor and Association of TRAP1 with Smad4-- Based on the fact that Delta TRAP1 has an inhibitory effect on TGF-beta signaling and fails to dissociate from active receptor complexes in contrast to full-length TRAP1, we hypothesized that TRAP1 might play a fundamental role in signaling from the TGF-beta and activin receptors, and possibly other receptors of the TGF-beta superfamily. Smad4 was a potential target for TRAP1 action, since it is an obligatory signaling intermediate in Smad-mediated signaling from all TGF-beta superfamily receptors. We therefore investigated whether TRAP1 might interact with Smad4 in vivo, and whether such an interaction might be signal-dependent. COS-1 cells were transiently transfected with TRAP1 and Smad4 and with or without activated Tbeta RI. As shown in Fig. 6A, TRAP1 binds only weakly to Smad4 in the absence of a TGF-beta signal. However, upon activation of the signaling cascade, a strong interaction can be demonstrated between TRAP1 and Smad4. This interaction most likely occurs off the receptor, as the activated receptor interacts only weakly with TRAP1, as shown above. These data are also consistent with the fact that a direct association of Smad4 with the activated receptor complex has not thus far been demonstrated (30, 31). To address the question whether TRAP1 might also interact with other Smad proteins, we transfected Flag- and Myc-tagged Smad 1-8 constructs and utilized a GFP-tagged TRAP1 construct as a potential binding partner (Fig. 6B). The data show that Smad4 is the only Smad binding partner of TRAP1.


View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6.   TRAP1 interacts selectively with Smad4. A, TRAP1 associates with Smad4 in a signal-dependent manner. COS-1 cells were transiently transfected with Myc-tagged Smad4, HA-tagged TGF-beta receptor type I (T204D) and type II (K277R), and Flag-tagged TRAP1 as indicated and subjected to immunoprecipitation with anti-HA antibody (first lane, positive control) and anti-Myc antibody (second through fifth lanes), followed by SDS-PAGE and Western blotting with anti-Flag antibody. Expression of all constructs is shown by SDS-PAGE and Western blotting of equal amounts of total cell lysates. Only two lanes were used for anti-HA controls, lanes not blotted with anti-HA are crossed. B, TRAP1 interaction with Smad4 is specific. COS-1 cells were transiently transfected with Myc- and Flag-tagged Smad1-8 and GFP-tagged TRAP1 as indicated and subjected to immunoprecipitation with anti-Myc or anti-Flag antibody (lane 1, negative control), followed by SDS-PAGE and Western blotting with anti-GFP antibody. C, Delta TRAP1 interacts directly with Smad4 in vitro. Various Smad4 deletion constructs were in vitro transcribed/translated using [35S]methionine and subsequently incubated with GST-tagged Delta TRAP1 bound to glutathione-agarose. Following SDS-PAGE, proteins were visualized using autoradiography.

In order to determine whether the interaction of TRAP1 with Smad4 is direct or dependent on bridging molecules, we performed in vitro pull-down assays. Since full-length TRAP1 could not be expressed in our bacterial strains (DH5alpha and BL21, data not shown), we utilized bacterially expressed GST-Delta TRAP1 bound to glutathione-agarose and various in vitro transcribed/translated Smad4 constructs. The Smad4 constructs were labeled with [35S]methionine and incubated with GST-agarose and GST-Delta TRAP1-agarose beads, followed by SDS-PAGE and autoradiography. As shown in Fig. 6C, Delta TRAP1 pulls down Smad4 full-length protein weakly and almost no Linker + MH2 and MH2 constructs. However, the MH1 domain, a MH1 + Linker construct, as well as a SAD + MH2 construct bind strongly to Delta TRAP1. This suggests that there are at least two binding sites in Smad4 that facilitate a direct TRAP1-Smad4 interaction, and that these binding sites are conformationally restricted and regulated in the full-length Smad4 in vivo (as shown above). Together, these results demonstrate a signal dependent, direct TRAP1-Smad4 interaction.

TRAP1-Smad4 Association Is Transient and Is Disrupted by a Receptor-activated Smad-- The association of TRAP1 with Smad4 in the presence of an activated receptor led us to investigate whether TRAP1, Smad4, and Smad2 are part of a common complex and whether the observed association of Trap1 with Smad4 results from the artificial state generated by overexpression of Smad4 in the absence of an equivalent amount of a receptor-activated Smad. Based on the receptor binding pattern of TRAP1 to TGF-beta and activin receptors, each of which activate Smad2 and Smad3, we examined the association of Smad4 with TRAP1 in COS-1 cells in the presence of increasing concentrations of Smad2 or the Smad2(3SA) mutant, which cannot be phosphorylated at its C-terminal end and thus cannot bind Smad4 following receptor activation.

Importantly, we show in Fig. 7 that the interaction of TRAP1 with Smad4 in the presence of an active receptor (lane 3) is substantially diminished upon addition of increasing amounts of Smad2 (lanes 4 and 5) to a level comparable to that of the TRAP1-Smad4 association seen in the absence of an activated receptor (lane 2). These data are consistent with the expectation that, in the presence of high levels of receptor-activated Smad2, the major binding partner of Smad4 is Smad2 rather than TRAP1 (lane 5). The data demonstrate that TRAP1, Smad4, and Smad2 do not complex together, but rather suggest that the binding of Smad4 to TRAP1 or the activated Smad2 is mutually exclusive. We interpret these results to suggest that a putative endogenous Smad4-TRAP1 interaction is likely only very transient in vivo and is disrupted as soon as Smad4 binds to receptor-activated Smad2/3. Lane 6 provides further evidence for this model by showing that disruption of the TRAP1-Smad4 interaction is not merely a consequence of the presence of Smad2, but requires that Smad2 be activated by phosphorylation at its C terminus. This is demonstrated by comparing the ability of Smad2 and the inactive Smad2(3SA) mutant, which cannot be terminally phosphorylated, to disrupt the TRAP1-Smad4 interaction. In contrast to wild type Smad2, Smad2(3SA) slightly increases the association of TRAP1 with Smad4 (lane 6), possibly by blocking the activation of endogenous Smad2. Together, these data suggest that receptor activation leads to association of Smad4 and TRAP1, and that this likely transient state occurs prior to the association of Smad4 with a receptor-activated Smad.


View larger version (42K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7.   Activated Smad2 disrupts the TRAP1-Smad4 interaction. COS-1 cells were transiently transfected with Myc-tagged Smad4, HA-tagged TGF-beta receptor type I (T204D, a*), Flag-tagged TRAP1, and increasing concentrations of Flag-tagged Smad2 or Smad2(3SA) as depicted. Cell lysates were subjected to immunoprecipitation with anti-Myc antibody and blotting with anti-Flag antibodies. Expression levels of TRAP1, Smad2, Smad2(3SA), Tbeta RI, and Smad4 are shown in the total lysates.

Mutated Forms of TRAP1 Inhibit TGF-beta Signaling by Interfering with Formation of the Smad2-Smad4 Complex-- Since Delta TRAP1 failed to dissociate from activated receptors (Fig. 4C) and inhibited TGF-beta signaling (Fig. 5) (23), we hypothesized that the dissociation of TRAP1 from active receptors and its association with Smad4 might facilitate the interaction of Smad4 with Smad2/3. To test this model, we determined whether Delta TRAP1 and other N- and C-terminal deletion mutants of TRAP1 would decrease the association of Smad4 with Smad2. As demonstrated in Fig. 8, the interaction of Smad2 and Smad4 was analyzed in the absence (lane 2) or presence (lane 3) of activated receptor but in the absence of overexpressed TRAP1, or in the presence of activated receptor and full-length TRAP1 (lane 4) or various TRAP1 mutants (lanes 5-8). All mutant forms of TRAP1 inhibited the Smad2-Smad4 interaction in the presence of activated receptor (lanes 5-8) in comparison to the Smad2-Smad4 interaction in the presence of activated receptor alone (lane 3). Delta NM-TRAP1, the shortest of all constructs (C-terminal 209 amino acids), exhibited the strongest inhibition. The full-length TRAP1 molecule also showed a weak inhibitory effect (lane 4). We have occasionally seen slight inhibition by overexpressed TRAP1 in reporter gene assays as well, and suggest that its strong expression in the experiment shown might result in sequestration of Smad4 by TRAP1. In comparable immunoprecipitation experiments where TRAP1 expression levels were lower, we did not see this effect of full-length TRAP1 (data not shown).


View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 8.   Truncated TRAP1 mutants interfere with formation of the receptor activated Smad2-Smad4 complex. COS-1 cells were transiently transfected with Myc-tagged Smad4, Flag-tagged Smad2, HA-tagged TGF-beta receptor type I (T204D, a*) and identical TRAP1 and TRAP1 deletions as utilized in Fig. 4B as indicated. Immunoprecipitations were carried out using anti-Myc antibody and subsequent blotting was done against the Flag-epitope. Expression levels of the transfected proteins are shown in total lysates.


    DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

The regulation of cellular signaling cascades involves a multitude of processes on various levels, including transcriptional regulation of signaling components, receptor trafficking, and phosphorylation events. In the case of signaling from TGF-beta superfamily receptors, phosphorylation on serine and threonine residues of both the receptors themselves and of Smad proteins activates signal transduction. Other emerging mechanisms of signal regulation are the chaperone, anchoring, and scaffolding proteins that regulate the folding, the subcellular distribution, and the recruitment of signaling molecules (27). Such mechanisms have been identified in a variety of signaling pathways such as the steroid/glucocorticoid pathway, mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling cascades, protein kinase A and C signaling pathway, and others (32). Very recently, such mechanisms have been shown to be important in the TGF-beta signaling pathway as well, in that a FYVE domain protein SARA has been shown to regulate the subcellular localization of two of the R-Smad proteins, Smad2 and Smad3 (14). However, despite evidence for such anchoring proteins and for identification of certain amino acids within the Smad and receptor proteins that confer specificity for the coordinated action of the pleiotropic receptors of the TGF-beta superfamily (33), it cannot be ruled out that other, as yet unidentified mechanisms might not also contribute to the fine tuning of response in this cascade. It is therefore reasonable to assume that other anchoring and scaffolding proteins will be found which regulate and promote assembly of signaling intermediates in the TGF-beta pathway.

We now propose that, given its signal-dependent association with both Tbeta RII and ActRIIB and its interaction with Smad4, the previously identified TRAP1 protein plays such a chaperone role in signaling downstream of not only TGF-beta , but likely also activin. Our working hypothesis is that TRAP1 facilitates interaction of Smad4 with Smad2/3 proteins by binding to Smad4 in the vicinity of the activated receptor and mediating its transfer to the phosphorylated Smad2/3 (Fig. 9). In support of this model, we have shown that TRAP1 associates most strongly with receptors that are not actively signaling, as is the case either in the absence of ligand or, experimentally, by use of kinase-deficient receptors. Consistent with our data, we propose that activation of the receptor might then lead to a conformational change in TRAP1 such that it dissociates from the receptor and forms a transient complex with Smad4. Most importantly, the strong signal-dependent association of TRAP1 and Smad4 is seen only in the absence of co-expressed Smad2, suggesting that it might be a transient complex which can be visualized only in the experimental condition of overexpression of Smad4 in the absence of an acceptor R-Smad. TRAP1 and the activated, phosphorylated Smad2 bind Smad4 in a mutually exclusive fashion. The C-terminal phosphorylation deficient 3SA mutant of Smad2 does not interfere with Smad4-TRAP1 association, presumably because it does not leave the receptor and cannot function as an acceptor for TRAP1-activated Smad4. For the R-Smads, phosphorylation of the C-terminal SSXS motif has been proposed to relieve the autoinhibitory interaction of the MH1 and MH2 domains, freeing the MH2 domain to interact with the MH2 domains of other R-Smads or of Smad4 (30, 34). At present, there is no known phosphorylation-dependent mechanism for activation of Smad4 similar to that of the R-Smads. While the simpler explanation of our data is that Smad4 can bind either receptor-activated TRAP1 or Smad2/3, we propose instead that the interaction of receptor-activated TRAP1 with Smad4 might function to reduce the autoinhibitory MH1/MH2 domain interaction of Smad4 and thereby make it competent to interact with activated R-Smads. Whether there is a complementary TRAP1-related mechanism operative downstream of BMP receptors remains to be demonstrated.


View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 9.   Proposed model of TRAP1 function in TGF-beta signal transduction.

The only other molecule described so far that serves as a chaperone in TGF-beta signaling is SARA (14). Although there are no sequence homologies between TRAP1 and SARA, there are some strikingly similar characteristics. Both proteins associate with the TGF-beta receptor complex, both are regulated in a ligand-dependent fashion, and both display mutually exclusive binding to their Smad protein partner with respect to the acceptor Smad. While TRAP1 binds Smad4 only in the absence of bound Smad2, SARA binds Smad2 only when it is not associated with Smad4. However, unlike domain binding data for SARA, we are unable to delineate any specific domain within TRAP1 necessary for the binding of the receptor and Smad4, but rather show that N- and C-terminal and middle regions all have binding activity. However, this is not without precedent in this field. Another chaperone/scaffolding protein, RAP, involved in folding and escorting certain low density lipoprotein receptor family proteins, has also been shown to bind multiple sites in the target receptor through multiple sites in the chaperone (35). Again with the TRIP-1 protein, shown previously to bind strongly to the type II TGF-beta receptor, deletion studies showed that the receptor-binding domain could not be localized and that multiple regions of the molecule participated in the interaction (22). Moreover, the binding of multiple Smad4 domains to TRAP1 and vice versa supports our hypothesis that TRAP1 might serve as a scaffold that separates the Smad4-MH1 from the Smad4-MH2 domain in order to present Smad4-MH2 to the MH2 domain of Smad2. However, in the absence of three-dimensional structural information about TRAP1, we cannot, for the present, address the question of its binding properties in detail.

We observed both mild stimulatory and mild inhibitory effects of exogenous full-length TRAP1 on TGF-beta signaling. Since TRAP1 is ubiquitously expressed (23), we propose that these variable effects might be dependent on the relative levels of endogenous TRAP1 expressed by a particular cell. In cells expressing low levels of TRAP1, exogenous TRAP1 might enhance TGF-beta signaling, whereas in cells with higher TRAP1 levels, additional exogenous TRAP1 might sequester Smad4 from endogenous R-Smads and inhibit signaling. This behavior is similar to published data on the SARA protein and ARIP1, a molecule proposed to act as a scaffold in the activin pathway (36). Both proteins are thought to facilitate signaling, yet full-length SARA stimulated only slightly or had no effect in functional assays (14), and full-length ARIP1 inhibited signaling (36). In this context, it is noteworthy that mutated forms of SARA or TRAP1 each inhibit signal transduction, suggesting that these molecules suppress the activity of the endogenous protein in a dominant-negative fashion. In the case of TRAP1, we have not yet determined whether this inhibitory activity might be due to the inability of these constructs to dissociate from the activated receptor complex, as shown for Delta TRAP1, their inability to associate with Smad4, or possibly also their inability to release and/or activate Smad4 to associate with Smad2. Our data showing that expression of mutant forms of TRAP1 diminishes Smad2-Smad4 interaction do not distinguish between these possibilities.

TRAP1 is a large protein (860 amino acids), and our data suggest that multiple subdomains contribute to its functional activity. Interestingly, we often observed two distinct TRAP1 bands. As the double band is observed only when utilizing a 3'-tagged full-length TRAP1 construct (such as Flag- and Myc-tagged TRAP1, e.g. Figs. 1, A and B, 2A, and 6A) but not a 5'-tagged construct (such as EGFP-TRAP1, Fig. 6B), the smaller molecule likely represents an N-terminally truncated TRAP1. Whether this is due to an alternative translation start site or proteolytic cleavage has yet to be determined.

During the course of this study, a report was published describing the interaction of TRAP1 with 5-lipoxgenase in a yeast two-hybrid system (37). However, no functional role was attributed to this binding activity, nor was the finding confirmed in mammalian cells. We have no data linking the effect of TRAP1 in TGF-beta signaling with the function of 5-lipoxgenase; however, at this point, it should not be ruled out that TRAP1 could serve other, as yet unknown, functions in the cells. In this regard, the human ortholog of the yeast vacuolar sorting protein, Vps39/Vam6p (38), previously published as a 3' cDNA named KIAA0770 (39) shows a 25% identity and 40% similarity to TRAP1. This new protein has now been shown to localize to the cytoplasmic face of lysosomes, suggesting that it, and by inference possibly also TRAP-1, may play a role in lysosome biogenesis.3 In this regard, another vesicular trafficking protein, caveolin-1, has been shown to play a role in TGF-beta signaling mediated by its direct interaction with Tbeta RI (40).

A recent data base search revealed that TRAP1 is localized on chromosome 2 and encoded by 11 exons (the terminal 34 base pairs were not part of the published contig). Given the functional importance of TRAP1 in TGF-beta signaling, knowledge of its chromosomal localization will now enable investigation of whether this locus can be linked to any diseases in which TGF-beta superfamily members are known to play a role. Studies addressing this question are under way in this laboratory.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Drs. Masa Kawabata for the HA-tagged ALK 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 constructs, Jeff Wrana and Liliana Attisano for TGF-beta receptor constructs, Caroline Hill for pEF-CX, Rik Derynck for wild type Smad4, Mark deCaestecker and Seong-Jin Kim for Smad4 deletion constructs, and Richard S. Kim, Pilar Frontelo, and Tony Parks for helpful discussions. We also thank Drs. Steve Caplan and Juan Bonifacino for sharing unpublished data.

    FOOTNOTES

* This work was supported by a stipend of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (to J. U. W.).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: Laboratory of Cell Regulation and Carcinogenesis, NCI, National Institutes of Health, Bldg. 41, Rm. C629, 41 Library Dr., MSC 5055, Bethesda, MD 20892-5055. Tel.: 301-496-5391; Fax: 301-496-8395; E-mail: Robertsa@dce41.nci.nih.gov.

Published, JBC Papers in Press, February 20, 2001, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M006473200

2 J. U. Wurthner, manuscript in preparation.

3 S. Caplan and J. S. Bonifacino, personal communication.

    ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used are: TGF-beta , transforming growth factor-beta ; TRAP1, TGF-beta receptor-associated protein 1; Tbeta RI, type I TGF-beta receptor; Tbeta RII, type II TGF-beta receptor; R-Smad, receptor-activated Smad; SARA, Smad anchor for receptor activation; FKBP12, FK506-binding protein 12; TRIP1, TGF-beta receptor interacting protein 1; STRAP, serine-threonine kinase receptor-associated protein; Smad, MAD-related protein; SBE, Smad binding element; GST, glutathione S-transferase; HA, hemagglutinin; EGFP, epidermal growth factor protein; PAGE, polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis.

    REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

1. Roberts, A. B., and Sporn, M. B. (1990) in Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology. Peptide Growth Factors and Their Receptors (Sporn, M. B. , and Roberts, A. B., eds) , pp. 419-472, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
2. Massague, J., and Chen, Y. G. (2000) Genes Dev. 14, 627-644[Free Full Text]
3. Wrana, J. L., Tran, H., Attisano, L., Arora, K., Childs, S. R., Massague, J., and O'Connor, M. B. (1994) Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 944-950[Abstract]
4. ten Dijke, I, Miyazono, I., and Heldin, I. (2000) Trends Biochem. Sci 25, 64-70[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
5. 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]
6. Yingling, J. M., Datto, M. B., Wong, C., Frederick, J. P., Liberati, N. T., and Wang, X. F. (1997) Mol. Cell. Biol. 17, 7019-7028[Abstract]
7. Ulloa, L., Doody, J., and Massague, J. (1999) Nature 397, 710-713[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. Kretzschmar, M., Doody, J., and Massague, J. (1997) Nature 389, 618-622[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. de Caestecker, M. P., Parks, W. T., Frank, C. J., Castagnino, P., Bottaro, D. P., Roberts, A. B., and Lechleider, R. J. (1998) Genes Dev. 12, 1587-1592[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Engel, M. E., McDonnell, M. A., Law, B. K., and Moses, H. L. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 37413-37420[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Yanagisawa, J., Yanagi, Y., Masuhiro, Y., Suzawa, M., Watanabe, M., Kashiwagi, K., Toriyabe, T., Kawabata, M., Miyazono, K., and Kato, S. (1999) Science 283, 1317-1321[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Song, C. Z., Tian, X., and Gelehrter, T. D. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 11776-11781[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Nishita, M., Hashimoto, M. K., Ogata, S., Laurent, M. N., Ueno, N., Shibuya, H., and Cho, K. W. (2000) Nature 403, 781-785[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Tsukazaki, T., Chiang, T. A., Davison, A. F., Attisano, L., and Wrana, J. L. (1998) Cell 95, 779-791[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15. Datta, P. K., Chytil, A., Gorska, A. E., and Moses, H. L. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 34671-34674[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Wang, T., Li, B. Y., Danielson, P. D., Shah, P. C., Rockwell, S., Lechleider, R. J., Martin, J., Manganaro, T., and Donahoe, P. K. (1996) Cell 86, 435-444[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17. Kawabata, M., Imamura, T., Miyazono, K., Engel, M. E., and Moses, H. L. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 29628-29631[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Chen, R. H., Miettinen, P. J., Maruoka, E. M., Choy, L., and Derynck, R. (1995) Nature 377, 548-552[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
19. Griswold-Prenner, I., Kamibayashi, C., Maruoka, E. M., Mumby, M. C., and Derynck, R. (1998) Mol. Cell. Biol. 18, 6595-6604[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Chen, Y. G., Liu, F., and Massague, J. (1997) EMBO J. 16, 3866-3876[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Shou, W., Aghdasi, B., Armstrong, D. L., Guo, Q., Bao, S., Charng, M. J., Mathews, L. M., Schneider, M. D., Hamilton, S. L., and Matzuk, M. M. (1998) Nature 391, 489-492[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
22. Choy, L., and Derynck, R. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 31455-31462[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Charng, M. J., Zhang, D., Kinnunen, P., and Schneider, M. D. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 9365-9368[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Pastorcic, M., and Sarkar, D. K. (1997) Cytokine 9, 106-111[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
25. Gilboa, L., Wells, R. G., Lodish, H. F., and Henis, Y. I. (1998) J. Cell Biol. 140, 767-777[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26. Henis, Y. I., Moustakas, A., Lin, H. Y., and Lodish, H. F. (1994) J. Cell Biol. 126, 139-154[Abstract]
27. Wrana, J. L., and Attisano, L. (2000) Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 11, 5-13[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
28. Wrana, J. L., Attisano, L. C., Arcamo, J., Zentella, A., Doody, J., Laiho, M., Wang, X. F., and Massague, J. (1992) Cell 71, 1003-1014[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
29. Zawel, L., Dai, J. L., Buckhaults, P., Zhou, S., Kinzler, K. W., Vogelstein, B., and Kern, S. E. (1998) Mol. Cell 1, 611-617[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30. Macias-Silva, M., Abdollah, S., Hoodless, P. A., Pirone, R., Attisano, L., and Wrana, J. L. (1996) Cell 87, 1215-1224[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
31. Zhang, Y., Feng, X., We, R., and Derynck, R. (1996) Nature 383, 168-172[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
32. Bukau, B., and Horwich, A. L. (1998) Cell 92, 351-366[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
33. Lo, R. S., Chen, Y. G., Shi, Y., Pavletich, N. P., and Massague, J. (1998) EMBO J. 17, 996-1005[Abstract/Free Full Text]
34. Souchelnytskyi, S., Tamaki, K., Engstrom, U., Wernstedt, C., ten Dijke, P., and Heldin, C. H. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 28107-28115[Abstract/Free Full Text]
35. Bu, G., and Schwartz, A. L. (1998) Trends Cell Biol. 8, 272-276[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
36. Shoji, H., Tsuchida, K., Kishi, H., Yamakawa, N., Matsuzaki, T., Liu, Z., Nakamura, T., and Sugino, H. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 5485-5492[Abstract/Free Full Text]
37. Provost, P., Samuelsson, B., and Radmark, O. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 1881-1885[Abstract/Free Full Text]
38. Nakamura, N., Herata, A., Ohsumi, Y., and Wada, Y. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 11344-11349[Abstract/Free Full Text]
39. Nagase, T., Kikuno, R., Ishikawa, K., Hirosawa, M., and Ohara, O. (2000) DNA Res. 7, 143-150[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
40. Razani, B., Zhang, X. L., Bitzer, M., von Gersdorff, G., Bottinger, E. P., and Lisanti, M. P. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 6727-6738[Abstract/Free Full Text]


Copyright © 2001 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.