Versican Interacts with Chemokines and Modulates Cellular Responses*

Jun HiroseDagger , Hiroto KawashimaDagger , Osamu Yoshie§, Kei Tashiro, and Masayuki MiyasakaDagger ||

From the Dagger  Department of Bioregulation, Biomedical Research Center, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2, Yamada-Oka, Suita 565-0871, the § Department of Microbiology, Kinki University School of Medicine, Ohno-Higashi, Osaka-Sayama, 589-8511, and the  Center for Molecular Biology and Genetics, Kyoto University, Shogo-in, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan

Received for publication, August 18, 2000, and in revised form, November 8, 2000



    ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

We previously reported that versican, a large chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan, isolated from a renal adenocarcinoma cell line, ACHN, binds L-selectin. Here we report that versican also binds certain chemokines and regulates chemokine function. This binding was strongly inhibited by the chondroitinase digestion of versican or by the addition of soluble chondroitin sulfate (CS) B, CS E, or heparan sulfate. Furthermore, these glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) could bind directly to the chemokines that bind versican. Thus, versican appears to interact with chemokines via its GAGs. We next examined if versican or GAGs affect secondary lymphoid tissue chemokine (SLC)-induced integrin activation and Ca2+ mobilization in lymphoid cells expressing a receptor for SLC, CC chemokine receptor 7. Interestingly, whereas heparan sulfate supported both alpha 4beta 7 integrin-dependent binding to mucosal addressin cell adhesion molecule-1 (MAdCAM-1)-IgG and Ca2+ mobilization induced by SLC, versican or CS B inhibited these cellular responses, and the extent of inhibition was dependent on the dose of versican or CS B added. These findings suggest that different proteoglycans have different functions in the regulation of chemokine activities and that versican may negatively regulate the function of SLC via its GAG chains.



    INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Proteoglycans are proteins that carry glycosaminoglycans (GAGs).1 The common GAGs are heparin, heparan sulfate (HS), chondroitin sulfate (CS), dermatan sulfate, and hyaluronic acid. These GAGs have a large number of sulfate or carboxyl groups and, hence, have a strong negative charge, which makes it possible for proteoglycans to bind through their GAG chains various positively charged molecules such as certain growth factors, cytokines, and chemokines (1, 2). This interaction in the extracellular matrix or on the cell surface has been suggested to play important roles in vivo in the formation of immobilized gradients of these humoral factors, in their protection from proteolytic degradation, and in their presentation to specific cell-surface receptors (3-5). There is an increasing body of evidence indicating that HS proteoglycans are particularly important in promoting the oligomerization of chemokines and in facilitating their presentation to specific receptors (6-8). Sporadic reports indicate that CS proteoglycans may also have this function (9, 10). For instance, CS proteoglycans on human neutrophils specifically bind platelet factor 4 and are involved in the activation of neutrophils (9). An artificial proteoglycan modified with CS binds RANTES via its GAGs, which also induces the activation of T cells expressing this molecule on their surface (10). Thus, not only HS but also CS proteoglycans appear to bind chemokines and to play important roles in the regulation of chemokine functions.

Versican is a large CS proteoglycan (11, 12) expressed in various tissues (13). We have recently reported that versican derived from a renal adenocarcinoma cell line, ACHN, interacts through its CS chains with leukocyte adhesion molecules such as L-selectin and CD44 (14, 15), both of which have been implicated in leukocyte trafficking (16, 17). Since versican has abundant CS side chains and is secreted into the extracellular matrix, we speculated that it might also interact with certain chemokines to help form haptotactic gradients in the tissues where chemokines and versican are colocalized. In the present study we examined the ability of versican to bind a large panel of chemokines and the biological consequences of such binding. Our results indicate that versican can bind specific chemokines through its CS chains and that the binding tends to down-regulate the chemokine function. This raises the possibility that different proteoglycans have different functions in the regulation of chemokine activities and that certain proteoglycans, such as versican, may negatively regulate chemokine functions.


    EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Reagents-- Versican was isolated from the culture supernatant of a human renal adenocarcinoma cell line, ACHN, as described previously (14). Epithelial-derived neutrophil attractant 78 (ENA-78), growth-related gene (Gro-alpha ), interleukin-8, gamma  interferon-inducible protein 10 (IP-10), platelet factor 4, lymphotactin, MCP-1, -2, -3, MIP-1alpha , MIP-1beta , and RANTES were purchased from Pepro Tech, Inc. (Rocky Hill, NJ). Recombinant human SDF-1beta (18) was purchased from Genetics Institute. Inc. (Cambrige, MA). Recombinant human liver and activation-regulated chemokine (LARC), pulmonary and activation-regulated chemokine (PARC), and thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC) were produced by using a baculovirus expression system and purified as described previously (19-21). EBI1-ligand chemokine was produced in Escherichia coli and purified as described previously (22). SLC and goat anti-human SLC polyclonal antibody were purchased from DAKO Japan Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan). Anti-versican monoclonal antibody (mAb) 2B1 (23), anti-CS mAb CS56 (24), chondroitinase ABC (EC 4.2.2.4), chondroitinase B (EC 4.2.2), keratanase (EC 3.2.1.103), chondroitin, CS A (whale cartilage), CS B (pig skin), CS C (shark cartilage), CS D (shark cartilage), CS E (squid cartilage), and heparan sulfate (bovine kidney) were all purchased from Seikagaku Kogyo (Tokyo, Japan). Rat MAdCAM-1-IgG (25) was kindly provided by Dr. Toshihiko Iizuka (Tokyo Medical and Dental University).

Cells-- The murine T cell line TK-1 (26) and murine pre B cell line L1.2 (27), kindly provided by Drs. Berhhard Holzmann (Technische Universität Munich) and Eugene Butcher (Stanford University School of Medicine), respectively, were cultured in RPMI 1640 supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (FCS), 10 mM HEPES, 2 mM L-glutamine, 1 mM sodium pyruvate, 1% (v/v) 100× nonessential amino acids, 100 units/ml penicillin, 100 µg/ml streptomycin, and 50 µM 2-mercaptoethanol (RPMI-FCS). The human acute T cell leukemia Jurkat cells were also cultured in RPMI-FCS. The L1.2 cells stable-expressing transfected human CCR7 (L1.2/CCR7) was generated as described previously (21) and was cultured in RPMI-FCS containing 0.8 mg/ml Geneticin (G418, Sigma).

Dot Blot Analysis-- Various concentrations of chemokines were spotted onto a Hybond C nitrocellulose membrane (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) and air-dried for 5 h. The membrane was blocked overnight with 3% BSA, 0.1% NaN3 in PBS at 4 °C. After blocking, the membrane was washed with PBS containing 1 mM CaCl2, 1 mM MgCl2 (PBS+) containing 0.05% Tween 20, and 0.1% BSA. Subsequently, the membrane was incubated with biotinylated versican (3 µg/ml) in the presence or absence of various GAGs (10 µg/ml) for 1 h at room temperature. After washing, ABC reagent (Vector Laboratories Inc., Burlingame, CA) was applied, and bound versican was detected using ECL (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech).

ELISA-- Versican (20 µg/ml) or GAGs (50 µg/ml) were coated on 4-mm-diameter 96-well EIA/RIA plates (Costar, Corning Inc.) overnight at 4 °C. The wells were washed with PBS+, and blocked with FCS for 2 h at room temperature. SLC was added to the versican- or GAG-coated wells and incubated for 2 h. After washing, the wells were incubated with biotinylated goat anti-human SLC (1 µg/ml, DAKO) in PBS+ containing 0.05% Tween 20 and 1% FCS for 1 h at room temperature. After washing, the wells were incubated with streptavidin-conjugated alkaline phosphatase (1:500, Promega, Madison, WI) for 1 h. To quantify the reaction, Blue PhosTM (Kirkegaard Perry Laboratories, Gaithersburg, MD) was added, and the optical density was read at 620 nm in a microtiter plate reader (InterMed, Tokyo, Japan). To determine the binding of MCP-1 to versican, versican (20 µg/ml) was coated on 4-mm-diameter 96-well EIA/RIA plates (Costar, Corning Inc.) overnight at 4 °C. The wells were washed with PBS+ and blocked with 3% BSA in PBS+ for 2 h at room temperature. MCP-1 (0-3 µg/ml) was added to the versican-coated wells and incubated for 2 h. After washing, the wells were incubated with biotinylated goat anti-human MCP-1 (1 µg/ml, Santa Cruz, Biotechnology Inc. Santa Cruz, CA) and then with peroxidase-conjugated streptavidin in PBS+ containing 0.1% BSA and 0.05% Tween 20 for 1 h at room temperature. To quantify the reaction, o-phenylenediamine (0.4 mg/ml) was used as the substrate, and the optical density at 490 nm was read in a microtiter plate reader. In some experiments, immobilized versican was treated with chondroitinase ABC (0.6 units/ml, pH 8.0), chondroitinase B (0.06 units/ml, pH 8.0), or keratanase (0.6 units/ml, pH 8.0) overnight at 37 °C. After blocking, SLC (1 µg/ml) was added to the wells and incubated for 1 h at room temperature. After washing, bound SLC was detected with streptavidin-conjugated alkaline phosphatase and Blue PhosTM as described above. To examine the efficacy of the enzyme digestion, either mAb 2B1 (3 µg/ml) or CS56 (1:500 dilutions) was added to the wells after the enzyme treatment. Peroxidase-conjugated anti-mouse IgG or anti-mouse IgG + IgM was then added to detect the binding of the primary antibodies. The binding was quantified by the o-phenylenediamine reaction as described above.

Cell Adhesion Assay-- Cell adhesion to MAdCAM-1 induced by SLC was determined as follows. SLC (0-3 µg/ml) and MAdCAM-1-IgG (100 ng/well) or human IgG (100 ng/well) were coimmobilized on 4-mm-diameter 96-well EIA/RIA plates (Costar, Corning Inc.) overnight at 4 °C. After washing twice with PBS, plates were blocked with FCS. TK-1 cells labeled with 2',7'-bis-(2-carboxyethyl)-5-(and 6)carboxyfluorescein acetoxymethyl ester (BCECF-AM) (2 µM) were then added to the wells (1.2 × 105 cells/well) in triplicate. After a 20-min incubation at 37 °C, the wells were filled with RPMI-FCS and sealed with Parafilm. The plates were inverted for 30 min at 37 °C to allow nonadherent cells to detach from the bottom surface of the wells, after which the medium containing unbound cells was removed by suction. The remaining bound cells were lysed with 0.1% Nonidet P-40, and the fluorescence intensity was read in a Fluoroskan II microplate fluorometer (Labsystem, Tokyo, Japan). The results are expressed as the percentage of cells bound and represent triplicate determinations.

Cell adhesion to MAdCAM-1 induced by SLC that had been immobilized on versican or GAGs was determined as follows. Various combinations of versican (300 ng/well), CS A, CS B, or HS (50 µg/ml) and MAdCAM-1-IgG (100 ng/well) or human IgG (100 ng/well) were coimmobilized in the wells overnight at 4 °C. After blocking with FCS, SLC (0-3 µg/ml) was added to the wells for 2 h at room temperature. Unbound SLC was removed by washing with PBS. Cell adhesion to each well was determined as described above.

Ca2+ Mobilization Assay-- The Ca2+ mobilization assay was carried out according to the method of Nagira et al. (28). In brief, L1.2, L1.2/CCR7, and Jurkat cells were incubated at 37 °C for 1 h with 2 µM Fura-2/AM (Sigma) at 1.0 × 106 cells/ml in RPMI without FCS in the dark. Cells were washed twice and resuspended at 1.0 × 106 cells/ml in PBS+ containing 1% FCS. A 1.5-ml sample of cell suspension was placed in a cuvette and set into a spectrofluorophotometer (RF1500, Shimadzu, Japan) with constant stirring. SLC (1 µg/ml), SDF-1beta (1 µg/ml), or leukotriene D4 (Sigma, 0.2 µg/ml) was preincubated with versican (0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 µg/ml) or GAGs (50 µg/ml) for 10 min at room temperature and added to the cell suspension. Emission fluorescence intensity at 510 nm was measured upon excitation at 340 nm (F340) and 380 nm (F380). Data were presented as the ratio of F340 divided by F380 (R340/380). After each measurement, R340/380 in the presence or absence of excess calcium was determined by the sequential addition of 100 µl of 1% Triton X-100 with or without 100 µl of 0.5 M EDTA.

Binding of Radiolabeled SLC to CCR7 Transfectant Cells-- The recombinant SLC was radioiodinated using Bolton-Hunter reagent (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) according to the manufacturer's instruction. L1.2 or L1.2/CCR7 cells (5 × 105 cells) were incubated with 125I-labeled SLC (10 ng/ml) alone or in the presence of unlabeled SLC (2 µg/ml) or increasing concentrations of versican (0.001-10 µg/ml), CS A, CS B, or HS (0.5, 5, or 50 µg/ml) for 1 h. After incubation, cell suspensions were placed on a mixture of dibutyl phthalate/olive oil (4:1) and separated from unbound radiolabeled SLC by centrifugation (8,000 × g, 4 °C, 5 min). The binding of 125I-labeled SLC was counted in a gamma  counter. All determinations were made in triplicate.


    RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Versican Binds Various Chemokines-- The binding of versican to 18 different chemokines was examined by dot blot analysis. Various chemokines were spotted onto a nitrocellulose membrane, biotinylated versican was added, and after washing, its binding was determined. Anti-versican core protein mAb 2B1 and anti-CS mAb CS56 were also spotted on the membrane to serve as positive controls for versican binding. As shown in Fig. 1A, biotinylated versican bound the CXC chemokines gamma  interferon-inducible protein 10 (IP-10), platelet factor 4, and SDF-1beta , the C chemokine lymphotactin, and the CC chemokines MCP-1, MCP-2, RANTES, liver and activation-regulated chemokine (LARC), and SLC. In contrast, biotinylated versican failed to bind interleukin-8 or MIP-1alpha , which are known to bind HS (29-31).



View larger version (50K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Versican binds various chemokines. A, binding of versican to chemokines. Anti-versican mAb 2B1, anti-CS mAb CS56, or chemokines (6.25-100 ng/spot) were spotted onto a nitrocellulose membrane. After blocking, biotinylated versican (3 µg/ml) was applied to the membrane. Binding of biotinylated versican was detected as described under "Experimental Procedures." B, binding of SLC or MCP-1 to immobilized versican. Closed () and open circles (open circle ) indicate the binding of chemokines to versican and blocking reagents, respectively. Serial dilutions of SLC (0-3 µg/ml) or MCP-1 (0-3 µg/ml) were added to the versican (300 ng/well)-coated wells or wells treated with blocking reagents and incubated for 2 h. After washing, the binding of chemokines to versican was measured by ELISA. ENA-78, epithelial-derived neutrophil attractant 78; Gro-alpha , growth-related gene; IL-8, interleukin-8; IP-10, gamma  interferon-inducible protein 10; PF-4, platelet factor 4; LARC, liver and activation-regulated chemokine; PARC, pulmonary and activation-regulated chemokine; TARC, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine; ELC, EBI1-ligand chemokine.

We then performed a reverse assay, where the ability of immobilized versican to bind soluble chemokines was tested by ELISA. As shown in Fig. 1B, versican bound SLC and MCP-1 in a dose-dependent manner. Similarly, immobilized versican also bound SDF-1beta and lymphotactin in a dose-dependent manner (data not shown).

Versican Binds Chemokines in a GAG-dependent Manner-- To examine whether the chemokine binding is mediated by the GAG chains on versican, the effects of GAG-degrading enzymes on the binding of SLC to versican were examined. As shown in Fig. 2, top panel, both chondroitinase ABC and chondroitinase B inhibited the binding of versican to SLC, whereas neither of these enzymes affected the reactivity of versican with anti-versican core protein mAb 2B1 (Fig. 2, middle panel). In addition, chondroitinase ABC as well as chondroitinase B almost completely abrogated the reactivity of versican with the anti-CS mAb CS56, whereas keratanase failed to alter the reactivity of versican with mAb CS56 (Fig. 2, bottom panel). These results suggest that the GAGs on versican play an important role in chemokine binding. However, the possibility remains that the core protein of versican is also involved in SLC binding, since treatment with chondroitinases did not completely inhibit the binding of SLC to versican.



View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   Versican binds SLC through glycosaminoglycan chains. Versican (300 ng/well) was coated onto the wells of an ELISA plate. After blocking, the wells were untreated or treated with chondroitinase ABC, chondroitinase B, or keratanase overnight at 37 °C. After washing, binding of SLC (1 µg/ml), anti-versican core protein mAb 2B1 (3 µg/ml), or anti-CS mAb CS56 (1:500 dilution) was detected as described under "Experimental Procedures." Values are expressed as the percentage of specific binding compared with the control.

To further investigate the involvement of GAGs in the chemokine binding, we examined whether exogenously added soluble GAGs could inhibit the binding of chemokines to versican. Interestingly, CS B, CS E, or HS almost completely abolished the binding of most of the chemokines examined, whereas CS C and CS D inhibited the binding of a restricted set of chemokines, and chondroitin and CS A were only slightly inhibitory (Fig. 3A). Given that CS B, CS E, and HS were extremely potent inhibitors of the chemokine binding to versican, we speculated that these GAGs might have particularly high chemokine binding abilities compared with other types of GAGs. To further examine this issue, various GAGs were immobilized on plastic wells, and the binding of SLC was determined by ELISA. As shown in Fig. 3B, SLC bound strongly to CS B, CS E, and HS in a dose-dependent manner but bound other GAGs only weakly or not at all, consistent with the results shown in Fig. 3A. SLC did not bind to a nonsulfated type of GAG, chondroitin. Collectively, these results indicate that the GAG chains of versican are instrumental in chemokine binding and that the sulfation of GAG chains may affect the binding.



View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Certain GAGs are involved in chemokine binding to versican. A, binding of versican to chemokines is inhibited by certain GAGs. Chemokines were spotted onto nitrocellulose membranes (50 ng/spot). After blocking, biotinylated versican was applied to each chemokine spot in the presence or absence of 10 µg/ml GAGs. In the case of SLC, GAGs were added at a concentration of 30 µg/ml. The amount of bound versican was quantified using a densitometer. Values are expressed as the percentage of specific binding compared with the control without GAGs. B, SLC directly binds certain GAGs. Chondroitin (CH), CS A, CS B, CS C, CS D, CS E, or HS (50 µg/ml) was coated onto the wells of an ELISA plate. After blocking, SLC (0.01, 0.03, 0.1, or 0.3 µg/ml) was added to the wells and incubated for 1 h. The binding of SLC to GAGs was assessed by ELISA. The values shown have been corrected by subtracting the background. Representative results from three separate experiments are shown. IP-10, gamma  interferon-inducible protein 10; PF-4, platelet factor 4; LARC, liver and activation-regulated chemokine.

Versican Down-regulates the alpha 4beta 7 Integrin-mediated Cell Adhesion Induced by SLC-- We next investigated the possible functional consequences of the versican-chemokine interaction. First, we examined whether versican could influence the SLC-induced activation of integrins using alpha 4beta 7 integrin- and CCR7-expressing TK-1 mouse T cells. SLC, which we found to bind versican strongly, can facilitate the adhesion of alpha 4beta 7 integrin-positive cells to their ligand, MAdCAM-1 (32). To examine the effect of versican on this chemokine action, SLC was coimmobilized in wells with MAdCAM-1-IgG alone or with MAdCAM-1-IgG and versican. To evaluate nonspecific binding, human IgG was used instead of MAdCAM-1-IgG. As shown in Fig. 4A, left panel, SLC enhanced the binding of TK-1 cells to MAdCAM-1-IgG, showing a bell-shaped dose-response pattern in the absence of versican. This up-regulated adhesion was apparently mediated by the interaction between alpha 4beta 7 integrin and MAdCAM-1, since the effect was completely abrogated by anti-beta 7 mAb and anti-MAdCAM-1 mAb (data not shown). By contrast, SLC immobilized on versican up-regulated the cell adhesion only marginally, if at all (Fig. 4A, right panel). The lack of strong up-regulation of TK-1 adhesion by SLC complexed with versican was not simply due to the reduced availability of SLC to TK-1, because the actual amount of SLC bound to the versican-coated wells would have been sufficient to up-regulate cell adhesion, at least when SLC was immobilized at a concentration of 1 µg/ml or higher (see Fig. 4B and its legend).



View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   Versican and CS B inhibit SLC-induced adhesion of TK-1 cells to MAdCAM-1-IgG. A, effects of versican on the SLC-induced adhesion of TK-1 cells to MAdCAM-1. The left panel shows the adhesion of TK-1 cells stimulated with immobilized SLC (0-3 µg/ml) to MAdCAM-1-IgG (100 ng/well ()) or human IgG (100 ng/well (open circle )). The right panel shows the adhesion to MAdCAM-1-IgG () or human IgG (open circle ) of TK-1 cells stimulated with SLC that had been immobilized on versican. Cell adhesion was determined as described under "Experimental Procedures." B, binding of SLC to versican or other immobilized samples. Binding of SLC to wells coated with versican (), versican, and MAdCAM-1-IgG (black-triangle), versican and human IgG (black-square), MAdCAM-1-IgG (triangle ), or human IgG () was determined by ELISA as described under "Experimental Procedures." The open circles (open circle ) indicate the control in which SLC was directly coated on the plastic wells. Note that the amount of SLC bound to versican-coated wells at a concentration of 1 µg/ml was comparable with that of SLC bound to uncoated wells at 0.3 µg/ml, which could effectively up-regulate cell adhesion (see A, left panel). This indicates that the lack of strong up-regulation of TK-1 adhesion in the presence of versican shown in A (right panel) is not due to the insufficient availability of SLC to TK-1 cells, since little up-regulated adhesion was observed even when the SLC concentration was increased to 1 µg/ml or higher in versican-coated wells (A). C, effects of GAGs (CS A, CS B, or HS) on the SLC-induced adhesion of TK-1 cells to MAdCAM-1. The experimental design was identical to that for A, except that 50 µg/ml GAGs were used instead of versican. Adhesion of TK-1 cells to MAdCAM-1-IgG (100 ng/well ()) or human IgG (100 ng/well (open circle )) was determined as described under "Experimental Procedures." Results were expressed as the percentage of bound cells, where the input cell number into each well was defined as 100%.

We then examined whether the apparent inhibitory effect of versican was mediated by its GAG chains. For this purpose, we used GAGs instead of versican in the above-mentioned assay and compared their effects with that of versican. As shown in Fig. 4C, the SLC·CS B complex induced the adhesion of TK-1 cells to immobilized MAdCAM-1-IgG only minimally, similar to the SLC-versican complex, whereas the SLC·HS complex strongly up-regulated the cell adhesion (Fig. 4C), in agreement with previous reports that the chemokine-HS complexes effectively activate integrins on lymphocytes (7, 8). Little or no chemokine-induced cell adhesion was observed in CS A-coated wells, probably because of the inability of CS A to bind SLC (Fig. 3B). In addition, inhibitory effects of versican and CS B appear specific for SLC-induced activation of integrins, since versican or CS B did not inhibit phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate-induced TK-1 adhesion (data not shown). These results demonstrate that a certain type of CS, similar or identical to CS B, negatively regulates SLC-induced cell adhesion, suggesting that versican exerts its suppressive effect on chemokine function at least partly through its GAG chains. In a separate study, we showed that versican is indeed modified at least partly with CS B (15).

Versican or a Certain Type of GAG Can Down-regulate the Chemokine-induced Intracellular Ca2+ Response-- We next evaluated another effect of versican on chemokine functions by examining the intracellular Ca2+ response elicited by SLC and SDF-1beta in L1.2/CCR7 (22) and Jurkat cells (33), respectively. As shown in Fig. 5A, leukotriene D4, SLC, or SDF-1beta induced a rapid and transient intracellular Ca2+ response. However, versican inhibited the chemokine-induced intracellular Ca2+ response in a dose-dependent manner. Versican did not affect the leukotriene D4-induced intracellular Ca2+ response (Fig. 5A). When GAGs were used instead of versican, CS B was again inhibitory on SLC-induced intracellular Ca2+ response, whereas CS A and HS were not (Fig. 5B). These results further suggest that versican inhibits the ability of chemokines to elicit intracellular signals, and it does so, at least in part, via its GAG chains.



View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5.   Versican and CS B inhibit Ca2+ mobilization induced by chemokines. L1.2 cells stably transfected with CCR7 (L1.2/CCR7) and Jurkat cells were loaded with Fura-2-AM and stimulated with stimulators that had been preincubated for 10 min with the indicated concentrations of versican (A) or 50 µg/ml GAGs (B). The arrowhead indicates the time of application of the stimulators. The intracellular calcium concentration was monitored by measuring the fluorescence ratio (F340/F380). Representative results from three separate experiments are shown. The scale is shown as a bar on the right.

How Does Versican Inhibit the Effects of SLC?-- To investigate the mechanism by which versican inhibits chemokine functions, we examined whether versican affects the binding of SLC to CCR7-expressing cells. As shown in Fig. 6A, the binding of 10 ng/ml 125I-SLC to L1.2/CCR7 cells was inhibited by a 200-fold excess amount of unlabeled SLC, which reduced the binding to the background level. In contrast, SLC binding was not significantly inhibited by even 10 µg/ml versican, even though the intracellular Ca2+ response induced by 1 µg/ml SLC in L1.2/CCR7 cells was inhibited by 0.4 µg/ml versican (Fig. 5). Taking the molecular size of SLC (15 kDa) and versican (1, 600 kDa) into account, this means that the intracellular Ca2+ response was inhibited at a molar ratio of 1:0.0037 (SLC:versican), whereas the binding of SLC to its receptor was uninhibited, even at a molar ratio of 1:9.37 (SLC:versican). Thus, the down-regulation of chemokine function by versican is unlikely to be due to the inhibition of SLC binding to its receptor. We next examined if GAGs affect the binding of SLC to L1.2/CCR7 cells. The binding of 10 ng/ml 125I-SLC to L1.2/CCR7 cells was inhibited by 50 µg/ml but not by lower doses of CS B or HS (5 and 0.5 µg/ml), whereas, as shown in Fig. 5, the intracellular Ca2+ response induced by 1 µg/ml SLC was inhibited by 50 µg/ml of CS B. Taking the molecular size of CS B (11-25 kDa) into consideration, this result implies that the SLC-induced intracellular Ca2+ response was inhibited by CS B at a molar ratio of 1:30.0-68.2 (SLC:CS B), whereas the binding of 125I-SLC to L1.2/CCR7 cells was inhibited only at much higher molar ratios (1:3,000-6,820).



View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6.   Versican does not inhibit the binding of SLC to its receptor. L1.2 cells (open bars) or L1.2/CCR7 cells (closed bars) were incubated with 125I-SLC (10 ng/ml) in the presence or absence of unlabeled SLC (2 µg/ml) or increasing concentrations of versican (A) or CS A, CS B, or HS (B). The assay was performed in triplicate. Data are shown as mean ± S.D.



    DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

It is generally accepted that proteoglycans interact with small molecular weight humoral mediators such as chemokines that are produced in the same tissue. These interactions protect the small molecules from degradation, help them form concentration gradients in situ, and help to present them to specific receptors on the cell surface (1-5). However, it is not known whether proteoglycans always regulate chemokine function positively, let alone the exact identity of the proteoglycans involved, and it is also unclear whether this interaction is a prerequisite for chemokine function. In the present study, we showed that a large CS proteoglycan, versican, which is derived from a human renal carcinoma cell line, binds a variety of chemokines through its CS side chains. This binding was inhibited by the addition of soluble CS B, CS E, or HS or by treatment with chondroitinases. We also showed that, in the absence of a core protein, certain GAG chains such as CS B, CS E, and HS could directly interact with a CC chemokine, SLC. Furthermore, we found that versican or certain types of CS can inhibit the function of SLC; i.e. SLC that was complexed with versican or CS B was significantly less efficient than SLC alone in inducing alpha 4beta 7 integrin activation as well as the intracellular Ca2+ response, and the extent of inhibition by versican or CS B was dose-dependent. In contrast, SLC that was complexed with HS was as efficient as SLC alone in its chemokine activities. These findings suggest that the interaction between proteoglycans and chemokines results in different biological consequences, depending on the proteoglycans involved, and that certain proteoglycans or their GAGs alone may negatively regulate the function of chemokines in certain situations.

Although CS proteoglycans bear negatively charged GAG chains that can interact with positively charged residues of chemokines, a nonspecific electrostatic interaction may not be the sole factor determining the interaction between CS proteoglycans and chemokines. The results shown in Fig. 3 that nonsulfated chondroitin failed to interact with SLC indicates that sulfation of the GAG chains is important in the interaction. However, CS E but not CS D could interact with SLC even though both are composed of disulfated disaccharides, indicating that sulfation at a specific position is critical. In addition, CS B and CS E, but not CS A, interacted with SLC even though all of these GAGs have 4-sulfation on N-acetylgalactosamine residues, suggesting that 4-sulfation on N-acetylgalactosamine residues is not sufficient but that sulfation of another position(s) and/or the structure of uronic acid residues is critical for chemokine binding.

Based on the observations that binding of the CC chemokine SLC to versican was inhibited by chondroitinase B, which specifically cleaves the CS B chain, and that CS B itself bound SLC directly, it is likely that CS B or a GAG containing a CS B-type structure on versican is actually involved in the chemokine binding. This hypothesis is supported by our GAG composition analysis using FACE (fluorophore-assisted carbohydrate electrophoresis) and immunological analysis using anti-GAG mAbs, which indicated that versican is modified with at least CS B and CS C (15). However, we do not know currently whether versican is modified with CS E or a similar moiety, and further structural analysis will be required to understand the exact carbohydrate structure responsible for SLC binding.

The mechanism by which versican or a specific GAG chain (versican/GAG) inhibits SLC function remains unclear, but several possibilities can be considered: (i) versican/GAG inhibits SLC binding to specific chemokine receptors; (ii) versican/GAG competes with endogenously expressed cell-surface proteoglycans that may help present SLC to its receptors; (iii) versican/GAG transduces a negative signal by binding to molecules different from chemokine receptors; (iv) versican/GAG allows SLC to bind its receptor even after forming a complex with SLC but inhibits an appropriate signal to be transduced.

The first possibility, that versican inhibits the binding of SLC to CCR7, appears unlikely since versican inhibited the SLC-induced intracellular Ca2+ responses (Fig. 5) at a dose that did not affect the binding of SLC to its receptor (Fig. 6A). The observations that the SLC-induced intracellular Ca2+ response was inhibited by CS B at a molar ratio of 1:30-68 (Fig. 5) and that the binding of 125I-SLC to CCR7-expressing cells was not inhibited at this dose range (Fig. 6B) suggest that CS B may also exert its inhibitory function without inhibiting the binding of SLC to its receptor. Concerning the second possibility, that versican/GAG competes with endogenous proteoglycans that may help present SLC to its specific receptor CCR7 and, thus, inhibit SLC signaling, our experiments showed that SLC specifically bound to a single class of high affinity receptors expressed on L1.2/CCR7 cells with a Kd of 2.26 nM (data not shown), indicating that endogenous cell-surface proteoglycans are not involved in SLC binding in this cell line. In addition, our preliminary experiments showed that the binding of SLC to L1.2/CCR7 cells was not altered by treating the cells with chondroitinase or heparitinase (data not shown). In line with this notion, it was recently reported that cell-surface GAG chain expression is not necessary for chemokines such as MIP-1alpha , MIP-1beta , and RANTES to exert their biological effects (34). Thus, the second possibility also appears unlikely. Concerning the third possibility, that versican/GAG transduces a negative signal by binding to a nonchemokine receptor type molecule, neither the TK-1 cells nor the L1.2/CCR7 cells used in this study bound to versican immobilized in plastic wells (data not shown). Furthermore, these cells do not express L-selectin or the active form of CD44, to which ACHN-derived versican binds (14, 15). Thus, versican on its own does not appear to bind to the cells used in this study, and hence, the third possibility seems unlikely. The fourth possibility, that the SLC that is complexed with versican or certain GAGs is unable to transduce an appropriate chemokine signal after binding to CCR7, is currently difficult to exclude and may, at least in part, be involved in the mechanism of inhibition. Consistent with this idea, it was recently reported that soluble complexes of RANTES and GAG chains can bind to an appropriate chemokine receptor but cannot induce intracellular Ca2+ signaling (35). Collectively, the available data suggest that versican/GAG does not inhibit SLC signaling through inhibiting SLC binding to CCR7. Rather, the inhibition of SLC signaling is probably at least partly due to inhibition of the chemokine signal after SLC binds its receptor. Still other possible mechanisms remain to be completely excluded.

Versican binds certain chemokines but not all of them. It is notable that versican tends to preferentially bind chemokines that attract mononuclear leukocytes. Preliminary analysis of the amino acid sequences of versican-reactive and nonreactive chemokines has failed to identify any conserved amino acid residues or peptide regions that may be involved in versican binding (data not shown). Other factors, such as the tertiary structure, may explain the differences in binding affinity.

Although versican is found in the skin, brain, kidney, and aorta (13), SLC is principally found in secondary lymphoid tissues (36). One might thus argue that this particular combination of proteoglycan and chemokine, i.e. versican and SLC, is not physiological. However, it should be pointed out that versican also binds SDF-1beta that is expressed in normal human skin as well as in inflammatory infiltrates of autoimmune skin diseases (37). In the inflamed skin, a large number of mononuclear cells expressing the receptor for SDF-1beta , CXCR4, selectively accumulates where SDF-1beta is localized (37), suggesting the possibility that SDF-1beta is involved in the infiltration of mononuclear cells into the inflamed skin. To inhibit excessive infiltration of mononuclear cells, however, an excess amount of SDF-1beta produced in inflammatory infiltrates may have to be eliminated locally. In this sense, our result showing that versican-SDF-1beta interaction results in down-regulation of SDF-1beta activity (Fig. 5A) is interesting, pointing to the possibility that versican expressed in the inflamed skin interacts with SDF-1beta to modulate the infiltration of mononuclear cells by down-regulating SDF-1beta activity, although this has yet to be evidenced experimentally. In addition, several CS proteoglycans, i.e. L-selectin-reactive CS proteoglycans of 150 and >200 kDa (38) and endoglycan (39), have been reported to be expressed in lymph node high endothelial venules where SLC is produced (36). It would be interesting to examine whether these CS proteoglycans can interact with SLC to regulate the function of SLC in situ.

Given that only specific kinds of GAGs can bind chemokines (Fig. 3), it is likely that only versican species modified with specific GAGs can bind chemokines. We previously showed that versican derived from ACHN binds via its GAG chains, a leukocyte adhesion molecule, L-selectin (14), and that certain GAGs such as CS B, CS E, and HS bind L-selectin directly (15). This specificity of binding is quite similar to what we observed for chemokine binding (Fig. 3B); i.e. those GAGs that bind L-selectin also bind certain chemokines, and those GAGs that do not bind L-selectin fail to bind the chemokines. Thus, we speculate that versican species modified with L-selectin-reactive GAGs also bind chemokines, which may be of particular importance in certain in vivo situations such as in inflammatory responses, where L-selectin and chemokines are concomitantly involved. The biological significance of the interaction between versican and chemokines is an important subject for further investigation.


    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Dr. T. Imai (KAN Research Institute) for helpful advice and Drs. T. Tanaka and T. Murai (Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine) for helpful discussions and critical reading of the manuscript.


    FOOTNOTES

* This work was supported in part by a grant-in-aid for Center of Excellence Research and Scientific Research on Priority Areas, Sugar Remodeling and Cellular Communications from the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, Japan, a grant from the Science and Technology Agency, Japan, and a grant from Ono Pharmaceutical Co.The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

|| To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 81-6-6879-3972; Fax: 81-6-6879-3979; E-mail: mmiyasak@orgctl.med.osaka-u.ac.jp.

Published, JBC Papers in Press, November 16, 2000, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M007542200


    ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used are: GAG, glycosaminoglycan; MAdCAM-1, mucosal addressin cell adhesion molecule-1; CCR7, CC chemokine receptor 7; SLC, secondary lymphoid-tissue chemokine; HS, heparan sulfate; CS, chondroitin sulfate; MCP, monocyte chemoattractant protein; MIP, macrophage inflammatory protein; RANTES, regulated on activation, normal T cell-expressed and -secreted; SDF-1, stromal cell-derived factor 1; mAb, monoclonal antibody; FCS, fetal calf serum; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.


    REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES


1. Kjellén, L., and Lindahl, U. (1991) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 60, 443-475[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Schlessinger, J., Lax, I., and Lemmon, M. (1995) Cell 83, 357-360[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
3. Ruoslahti, E., and Yamaguchi, Y. (1991) Cell 64, 867-869[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4. Tanaka, Y., Adams, D. H., and Shaw, S. (1993) Immunol. Today 14, 111-115[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
5. Saksela, O., Moscatelli, D., Sommer, A., and Rifkin, D. B. (1988) J. Cell Biol. 107, 743-751[Abstract]
6. Hoogewerf, A. J., Kuschert, G. S. V., Proudfoot, A. E. I., Borlat, F., Clark-Lewis, I., Power, C. A., and Wells, T. N. C. (1997) Biochemistry 36, 13570-13578[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7. Tanaka, Y., Adams, D. H., Hubscher, S., Hirano, H., Siebenlist, U., and Shaw, S. (1993) Nature 361, 79-82[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. Tanaka, Y., Kimata, K., Wake, A., Mine, S., Morimoto, I., Yamakawa, N., Habuchi, H., Ashikari, S., Yamamoto, H., Sakurai, K., Yoshida, K., Suzuki, S., and Eto, S. (1996) J. Exp. Med. 184, 1987-1997[Abstract]
9. Petersen, F., Bock, L., Flad, H. -D., and Brandt, E. (1998) J. Immuol. 161, 4347-4355[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Wolff, E. A., Greenfield, B., Taub, D. D., Murphy, W. J., Bennett, K. L., and Aruffo, A. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 2518-2524[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Zimmermann, D. R., and Ruoslahti, E. (1989) EMBO J. 8, 2975-2981[Abstract]
12. Iozzo, R. V., and Murdoch, A. D. (1996) FASEB. J. 10, 598-614[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Bode-Lesniewska, B., Dours-Zimmermann, M. T., Odermatt, B. F., Briner, J., Heitz, P. U., and Zimmermann, D. R. (1996) J. Histochem. Cytochem. 44, 303-312[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Kawashima, H., Li, Y. -F., Watanabe, N., Hirose, J., Hirose, M., and Miyasaka, M. (1999) Int. Immunol. 11, 393-405[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Kawashima, H., Hirose, M., Hirose, J., Nagakubo, D., Plaas, A. H. K., and Miyasaka, M. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 35448-35456[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Arbonés, M. L., Ord, D. C., Ley, K., Ratech, H., Maynard-Curry, C., Otten, G., Capon, D. J., and Tedder, T. F. (1994) Immunity 1, 247-260[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17. Naor, D., Sionov, R. V., and Ish-Shalom, D. (1997) Adv. Cancer Res. 71, 241-319[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18. Tashiro, K., Tada, H., Heiker, R., Shirozu, M., Nakano, T., and Honjo, T. (1993) Science 261, 600-603[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
19. Hieshima, K., Imai, T., Opdenakker, G., Van Damme, J., Kusuda, J., Tei, H., Sakaki, Y., Takatsuki, K., Miura, R., Yoshie, O., and Nomiyama, H. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 5846-5853[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Hieshima, K., Imai, T., Baba, M., Shoudai, K., Ishizuka, K., Nakagawa, T., Tsuruta, J., Takeya, M., Sakaki, Y., Takatsuki, K., Miura, R., Opdenakker, G., Van Damme, J., Yoshie, O., and Nomiyama, H. (1997) J. Immuol. 159, 1140-1149[Abstract]
21. Imai, T., Yoshida, T., Baba, M., Nishimura, M., Kakizaki, M., and Yoshie, O. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 21514-21521[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Yoshida, R., Nagira, M., Kitaura, M., Imagawa, N., Imai, T., and Yoshie, O. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 7118-7122[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Isogai, Z., Shinomura, T., Yamakawa, N., Takeuchi, J., Tsuji, T., Heinegård, D., and Kimata, K. (1996) Cancer Res. 56, 3902-3908[Abstract]
24. Avnur, Z., and Geiger, B. (1984) Cell 38, 811-822[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
25. Iizuka, T., Tanaka, T., Suematsu, M., Miura, S., Watanabe, T., Koike, R., Ishimura, Y., Ishii, H., Miyasaka, N., and Miyasaka, M. (2000) J. Immuol. 164, 2463-2471[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26. Berlin, C., Berg, E. L., Briskin, M. J., Andrew, D. P., Kilshaw, P. J., Holzmann, B., Weissman, I. L., Hamann, A., and Butcher, E. C. (1993) Cell 74, 185-195[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
27. Gallatin, W. M., Weissman, I. L., and Butcher, E. C. (1983) Nature 304, 30-34[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
28. Nagira, M., Imai, T., Hieshima, K., Kusuda, J., Ridanpää, M., Takagi, S., Nishimura, M., Kakizaki, M., Nomiyama, H., and Yoshie, O. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 19518-19524[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Webb, L. M. C., Ehrengruber, M. U., Clark-Lewis, I., Baggiolini, M., and Rot, A. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 7158-7162[Abstract]
30. Kuschert, G. S. V., Hoogewerf, A. J., Proudfoot, A. E. I., Chung, C., Cooke, R. M., Hubbard, R. E., Wells, T. N. C., and Sanderson, P. N. (1998) Biochemistry 37, 11193-11201[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
31. Koopmann, W., and Krangel, M. S. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 10103-10109[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Pachynski, R. K., Wu, S. W., Gunn, M. D., and Erle, D. J. (1998) J. Immunol. 161, 952-956[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Hesselgesser, J., Liang, M., Hoxie, J., Greenberg, M., Brass, L. F., Orsini, M. J., Taub, D., and Horuk, R. (1998) J. Immuol. 160, 877-883[Abstract/Free Full Text]
34. Ali, S., Palmer, A. C. V., Banerjee, B., Fritchley, S. J., and Kirby, J. A. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 11721-11727[Abstract/Free Full Text]
35. Burns, J. M., Lewis, G. K., and DeVico, A. L. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 14499-14504[Abstract/Free Full Text]
36. Gunn, M. D., Tangemann, K., Tam, C., Cyster, J. G., Rosen, S. D., and Williams, L. T. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 258-263[Abstract/Free Full Text]
37. Pablos, J. L., Amara, A., Bouloc, A., Santiago, B., Caruz, A., Galindo, M., Delaunay, T., Virelizier, J. L., and Arenzana-Seisdedos, F. (1999) Am. J. Pathol. 155, 1577-1586[Abstract/Free Full Text]
38. Derry, C. J., Faveeuw, C., Mordsley, K. R., and Ager, A. (1999) Eur. J. Immunol. 29, 419-430[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
39. Sassetti, C., Van Zante, A., and Rosen, S. D. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 9001-9010[Abstract/Free Full Text]


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