From the Division of Molecular Biology and Center for
Biomedical Genetics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121,
Amsterdam 1066 CX, the § Department of Pharmacy and
Pharmacology, Slotervaart Hospital, Louwesweg 6, Amsterdam 1066 EC, and
¶ The Netherlands Ophthalmic Research Institute, Royal Dutch
Academy of Sciences, Meibergdreef 47, Amsterdam 1105 BA, The
Netherlands
Received for publication, December 13, 2002, and in revised form, February 12, 2003
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Cyclic nucleotides are known to be effluxed from
cultured cells or isolated tissues. Two recently described members of
the multidrug resistance protein family, MRP4 and MRP5, might be
involved in this process, because they transport the 3',5'-cyclic
nucleotides, cAMP and cGMP, into inside-out membrane vesicles. We have
investigated cGMP and cAMP efflux from intact HEK293 cells
overexpressing MRP4 or MRP5. The intracellular production of cGMP and
cAMP was stimulated with the nitric oxide releasing compound sodium
nitroprusside and the adenylate cyclase stimulator forskolin,
respectively. MRP4- and MRP5-overexpressing cells effluxed more
cGMP and cAMP than parental cells in an ATP-dependent
manner. In contrast to a previous report we found no glutathione
requirement for cyclic nucleotide transport. Transport increased
proportionally with intracellular cyclic nucleotide concentrations over
a calculated range of 20-600 µM, indicating low
affinity transport. In addition to several classic inhibitors of
organic anion transport, prostaglandins A1 and
E1, the steroid progesterone and the anti-cancer drug
estramustine all inhibited cyclic nucleotide efflux. The efflux
mediated by MRP4 and MRP5 did not lead to a proportional decrease in
the intracellular cGMP or cAMP levels but reduced cGMP by maximally
2-fold over the first hour. This was also the case when
phosphodiesterase-mediated cyclic nucleotide hydrolysis was inhibited
by 3-isobutyl-1-methylxanthine, conditions in which efflux was maximal.
These data indicate that MRP4 and MRP5 are low affinity cyclic
nucleotide transporters that may at best function as overflow pumps,
decreasing steep increases in cGMP levels under conditions where cGMP
synthesis is strongly induced and phosphodiesterase activity is limiting.
The cyclic nucleotides cAMP and cGMP are major second
messengers in cells. cGMP is formed from GTP by the action of guanylate cyclase (GC)1 and cAMP from
ATP by adenylate cyclase (AC). Both GC and AC can be activated by a
variety of intracellular and extracellular stimuli. GC is stimulated by
nitric oxide (NO), which leads to a build up of cGMP in the cell,
whereas AC is activated by the binding of ligands to membrane receptors
(1). Phosphodiesterases (PDEs) hydrolyze cGMP and cAMP to 5'-GMP and
5'-AMP, respectively, returning cyclic nucleotide concentrations to
basal levels and making the cell susceptible to a new stimulus.
The efflux of cyclic nucleotides, which has been observed in tissues,
might also influence intracellular concentrations (2-10). Efflux is
most prominent when cells or tissues are incubated with a GC
stimulator, such as the nitric oxide (NO) releasing compound sodium
nitroprusside (SNP), in combination with a PDE inhibitor, such as
3-isobutyl-1-methylxanthine (IBMX). These results suggest that efflux
may serve as an alternative mechanism of cyclic nucleotide reduction
under conditions where PDE activity is insufficient, for instance under
conditions of PDE saturation or inhibition. Tight regulation of
intracellular cyclic nucleotide concentrations is important, because
excessive cGMP production in cells is toxic and may cause neurotoxicity
(5, 6) or retinal degeneration (11, 12). In addition to a possible role
in the regulation of intracellular cyclic nucleotide level, efflux of
cyclic nucleotides may also have a signaling function, as suggested by
reports showing biological effects of extracellular cGMP (13, 14).
Recently, two members of the multidrug resistance protein (MRP) family,
MRP4 and MRP5, have been shown to transport cAMP and cGMP (15-17).
Characterized members of the MRP family are localized in the plasma
membrane and function as transporters that couple ATP hydrolysis to the
efflux of organic anions (18, 19). In contrast to other MRPs, MRP4 and
MRP5 were shown to transport the monophosphorylated form of nucleoside
analog drugs (20-22). Subsequently, Jedlitschky et al. (17)
showed ATP-dependent transport of cGMP and cAMP in membrane
vesicles derived from hamster lung fibroblasts overexpressing human
MRP5 cDNA. Other groups obtained similar results with membrane
vesicles from Sf9 cells overexpressing human MRP4 cDNA (15,
16), whereas MRP4-overexpressing Madin-Darby canine kidney II cells
were demonstrated to efflux cAMP (23). Moreover, because membrane
vesicles derived from human erythrocytes display
ATP-dependent cGMP transport (24) and contain MRP5 (17), it
has been suggested that MRP5 mediates this transport. There are
unexplained discrepancies in these studies, however. Although cGMP is
reported to be a high affinity substrate for MRP4 and MRP5, it is a
poor inhibitor of the transport of other substrates by these
transporters (16, 25). Furthermore, GSH was required for transport of
cAMP from MRP4-transfected cells (23) but not into inside-out membrane
vesicles derived from Sf9 cells (15, 16). To address these
discrepancies, we have investigated the efflux of cGMP and cAMP from
HEK293 cells overexpressing either MRP4 or MRP5. We find transport
properties consistent with a low affinity process that is not
influenced by GSH.
Chemicals--
Poly-D-lysine, cGMP, cAMP, glutamate,
buthionine sulfoximine (BSO), trequinsin (TQ), zaprinast,
probenecid (PR), sulfinpyrazone (SP), sodium nitroprusside (SNP),
sodium azide, 2-deoxy-glucose, butyrate, 3-isobutyl-1- methylxanthine
(IBMX), bromosulfophthalein, bromphenol blue, dexamethasone,
indocyanine green (ICG), progesterone, prostaglandin A1
(PGA1), prostaglandin E1 (PGE1),
rose bengal, and forskolin were obtained from Sigma (Zwijndrecht, The
Netherlands). Estramustine phosphate was from Pharmacia & Upjohn BV
(Woerden, The Netherlands). Sildenafil was from Pfizer.
Bis(pivaloyloxymethyl)-9-(2-phosphonylmethoxyethyl)adenine (bis(POM)PMEA), 3H-labeled at position 8, was
obtained from Moravek Chemicals, and unlabeled bis(POM)PMEA was a gift
from J. Balzarini (Rega Institute, Leuven, Belgium). Acetoxymethyl-cGMP
was from Biolog (Germany), and interleukin 1 Cell Lines--
HEK293 parental cells and HEK293/5I and
HEK293/5E cells transduced with MRP5 cDNA and HEK293/4.3
and HEK293/4.63 overexpressing MRP4 cDNA have been
described before (21, 22). Cells were grown in Dulbecco's modified
Eagle's medium (Invitrogen) supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum,
penicillin (100 IU/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Invitrogen), at
37 °C under 5% CO2 humidified air. Cells were routinely
checked for the absence of mycoplasma and for MRP4 and MRP5 expression
levels. Fig. 1B illustrates the degree of overexpression of
MRP4/MRP5 in the four transfected cell lines used. The relative
overexpression of MRP5 is about 80-fold in the 5I
line and somewhat lower in 5E; overexpression of
MRP4 is about 75-fold in the 4.63 cell line and a
little lower in 4.3. It should be stressed, however, that
levels on Western blots cannot be directly translated into ability to
pump substrate from intact cells, because not all transporter molecules
in the transfectants are in the plasma membrane (21, 22).
Western Blot Analysis--
Western blot analysis was performed
essentially as described before (21). Protein from a total cell lysate
was quantified using the Bio-Rad protein assay (Bio-Rad, Richmond, CA),
fractionated on an 8% polyacrylamide slab gel and transferred to a
nitrocellulose membrane by electroblotting. After blocking for 1 h
in PBS containing 1% nonfat milk powder, 1% bovine serum albumin, and
0.05% Tween 20. Rat monoclonal antibodies NKI-12C5 and NKI-12C4 (21)
were used to detect MRP5 and MRP4, respectively, with subsequent use of
a horseradish peroxidase-labeled goat anti-rat antibody (Santa Cruz
Technology) and enhanced chemiluminescence (Amersham Biosciences, Buckinghamshire, UK) for detection.
Cyclic Nucleotide Transport Experiments--
Cells were seeded
at a density of 2 × 106 per well in
poly-D-lysine-coated 12-well plates and were grown
overnight. On the following day, the cells were washed with PBS and
then incubated at 37 °C in 1 ml of pre-warmed Hanks' buffered salt
solution (HBSS, Life Technologies) under the conditions mentioned in
the text. At the indicated time points the incubation medium was
removed, acidified with HCl (end concentration, 0.1 M), and
centrifuged, and the supernatant was used for analysis. Intracellular
cGMP was extracted by adding 0.1 M HCl (0.5 ml), scraping,
and resuspending the cells. Insoluble material was removed by
centrifugation. A colorimetric cGMP or cAMP low pH immunoassay (R&D
Systems, Abingdon, Oxon, UK) was used for analysis of the intracellular
and extracellular cyclic nucleotide levels. To determine the
requirement for ATP in the efflux of cGMP, cells were first stimulated
with SNP and IBMX, washed twice with ice-cold PBS, and incubated in 1 ml of pre-warmed HBSS without glucose and supplemented with 10 mM sodium azide and 10 mM 2-deoxy-glucose to
deplete intracellular ATP. Samples were taken and analyzed as described
above. To deplete glutathione (GSH), cells were incubated
overnight with 40 µM BSO in standard growth medium, which
led to a reduction of ~90% in GSH levels, and the GSH amount was
determined as described previously (26). Extracellularly added cGMP was
stable under the assay conditions used, because there was a decrease of
less than 1% over 4 h, as measured with a validated
high-performance liquid chromatographic method (21).
PMEA Transport--
Cells were seeded at a density of 2 × 106 per well in poly-D-lysine-coated 12-well
plates and grown overnight. On the following day, the cells were washed
with PBS and loaded for 1 h with the PMEA prodrug
bisPOM[3H]PMEA (1 µM) in pre-warmed ATP
depletion medium (Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium without glucose,
Invitrogen) supplemented with 10 mM sodium azide and 10 mM 2-deoxyglucose. After loading, the cells were washed
quickly with pre-warmed PBS and incubated at 37 °C in pre-warmed
HBSS supplemented with the compounds indicated in the text. At the
indicated time points, medium samples were taken for analysis. The
intracellular samples were obtained by resuspending the cells in 0.2 ml
of trypsin solution (Invitrogen). The samples were added to 4 ml of
scintillation liquid, and the radioactivity was determined.
Efflux of cGMP by HEK293 Cells--
Because cGMP was reported to
be a substrate of MRP4 and MRP5 in vesicle uptake studies, we
determined cGMP efflux from HEK293 cells overexpressing MRP4 (4.63 cells) or MRP5 (5I cells) (21). Fig.
1A shows that the 4.63 and 5I
cells excreted 3- to 4-fold more cGMP than the parental cells. Fig.
1B shows the relative overexpression of MRP4 and MRP5 for
the transfectants. Parental HEK293 (293) cells effluxed ~10 pmol of
cGMP/106 cells, which was just above the detection limit of
the assay. The intracellular levels under these conditions, between 1 and 20 pmol/106 cells could not be determined reliably,
which was probably due to the relatively high concentrations of
interfering intracellular metabolites. The cell-permeable acetoxymethyl
ester of cGMP led to increased intracellular cGMP levels and increased
cGMP efflux, but this was still near the detection limit (data not
shown).
To raise both the intracellular and effluxed cGMP to levels that could
be reliably determined, we tested the effects of the broad-specificity
PDE inhibitor 3-isobutyl-1-methylxanthine (IBMX) and the nitric oxide
(NO) releasing agent sodium nitroprusside (SNP). Fig.
2 shows the results for the parental
cells. A 1-h incubation with 1 mM SNP or 1 mM
IBMX alone readily increased the cGMP efflux of the HEK293 cells by 5- to 6-fold. Incubation with IBMX alone also led to a substantial
increase in intracellular cGMP levels, whereas SNP marginally increased
the intracellular levels, from ~10 to ~15 pmol/106
cells (Fig. 2B). The combination of SNP and IBMX led to the
strongest increase of cGMP efflux and intracellular cGMP levels, which
increased ~17- and ~135-fold, respectively. Glutamate, butyrate, or
interleukin 1 Efflux of cGMP at High Intracellular cGMP Concentrations--
Fig.
3 shows the effect of MRP5 and MRP4 on
cGMP efflux from 293 cells, if the intracellular cGMP levels were
raised by adding IBMX (Fig. 3A) or IBMX plus SNP (Fig.
3B). Under all conditions used and whether cells were
incubated for 1 h (white bars) or 4 h (gray
bars), overexpression of MRP5 and MRP4 increased cGMP efflux. As
the intracellular cGMP concentration increased in the presence of IBMX
(Fig. 3A) and more so in the presence of IBMX plus SNP (Fig.
3B, note 7-fold difference in scale) the cGMP efflux increased proportionally. As this increase occurred both in the parental cells and in the transfectants, the relative increase in
efflux due to the transfected MRP4 or MRP5
remained relatively modest under all conditions. This is illustrated in
Fig. 4. In the MRP5 transfectants cGMP
efflux relative to parental cells increased about 2-fold in the
presence of IBMX; in the MRP4 transfectants, the relative cGMP efflux
was decreased somewhat by IBMX, but this can be attributed to a partial
inhibition of MRP4 by IBMX (see below). Note, however, that even though
the relative rate of efflux by MRP4 is decreased by IBMX (Fig. 4), the
absolute rate is increased, as can be seen by comparing Fig. 1 with
Fig. 3. Most of the cGMP was effluxed during the first hour of
incubation (Fig. 3A, white bars). The variation
of the intracellular cGMP levels over time was similar in all lines:
high levels after 1 h decreasing to low levels after 4 h
(Fig. 3A, right panel). The decrease might be the
result of feedback inactivation of GC, because it was less pronounced
when synthesis of cGMP was stimulated with SNP (Fig. 3B,
right-hand panel) (29). Activation of a PDE not sensitive to
IBMX might also play a role (29, 30).
Two remarkable results presented in Fig. 3 deserve emphasis: First, the
presence of high concentrations of MRP4 and MRP5 in the HEK293
transfectants had little effect on the intracellular cGMP
concentrations found. At most, there was a 2-fold decrease in cGMP in
the MRP4 and MRP5 transfectants relative to parental 293 cells, both in
Fig. 3A and Fig. 3B, but this decrease was only
visible after 1-h incubation and not after 4 h and showed a
relatively large day-to-day variation. When we compared experiments done on the same day the decrease after 1 h was consistently
found; in the presence of IBMX alone the decrease was statistically
significant for all the transfectants (paired Student's t
test, p < 0.05), whereas with IBMX plus SNP this was
only the case for 5I cells. Clearly, MRP4 and MRP5 are unable to lower
intracellular cGMP substantially under the conditions tested.
The second remarkable result in Fig. 3 is that the ability of MRP4 and
MRP5 to transport cGMP is not saturated even at very high apparent
intracellular cGMP levels. This is unexpected, because the reported
Km values for MRP4- and MRP5-mediated cGMP transport
in vesicle uptake experiments are quite low, 9.7 and 2.1 µM (16, 17), respectively. These values are far below the
intracellular cGMP concentrations that can be calculated from the data
in Fig. 3. Assuming that 106 cells have a volume of about 1 µl and that all cGMP found is free in the cytosol, we calculate that
the intracellular cGMP concentrations after 1 h were 40-80
µM in the presence of IBMX alone (Fig. 3A).
When the intracellular cGMP concentration was further raised by
stimulating the cells with IBMX plus SNP (Fig. 3B), the
calculated levels were between 350-600 µM, an
approximate increase of 8- to10-fold over the levels obtained by
treatment with IBMX alone (Fig. 3A). The absolute rate of
cGMP efflux increased proportionally by 7- to 8-fold in the HEK293
cells and 9- to 10-fold in the 4.63 and 5I cells, a linear increase in
transport as a function of cGMP concentration without any indication
that the transport capacity was near saturation. We infer from these
results that MRP4 and MRP5, as well as the endogenous transporter(s)
present in HEK293 cells, have a low affinity for cGMP.
Effect of IBMX on Transport by MRP4 and MRP5--
The results in
Fig. 4 suggest that IBMX inhibits MRP4- but not MRP5-mediated cGMP
transport in intact cells. However, because IBMX also increases
intracellular cGMP levels and does not completely inhibit MRP4, the
degree of inhibition was difficult to assess based on the cGMP efflux
alone. We therefore tested the effect of 1 mM IBMX on
efflux of another substrate of MRP4 and MRP5, PMEA (20, 22). Fig.
5A shows that the drug
decreased PMEA efflux from parental cells and from the MRP4 and MRP5
transfectants. However, if the results for the transfectants are
corrected for the substantial inhibition of the efflux from parental
cells (Fig. 5B), only the MRP4 transfectant was inhibited by
about 50%, whereas the MRP5 transfectant was unaffected. Addition of 1 mM SNP together with IBMX did not affect PMEA efflux (not
shown), showing that PMEA transport was inhibited by IMBX itself and
not by the increased cGMP levels. Similar results were obtained with an
independent MRP4 (4.3) and an independent MRP5 (Fig. 5E)
transfectant, respectively (not shown). The high inhibition of
endogenous PMEA transport by IBMX also appears to apply to the cGMP
transport, as suggested by the results in Fig. 2 (compare
light and dark gray bars).
Active Transport by MRP4 and MRP5--
To show that transport by
MRP4 and MRP5 was ATP-dependent and to determine whether
this was also the case for the endogenous cGMP transport, we determined
transport under normal and under ATP-depleting conditions. Fig.
6 shows the time-dependent
and ATP-dependent efflux of cGMP for 293, 5I (MRP5), and
4.63 (MRP4) cells, after inducing high intracellular cGMP levels with
IBMX and SNP. Inhibition of ATP production strongly decreased the cGMP efflux by MRP5 and MRP4 as well as by the endogenous
transporter(s).
Inhibition of MRP4- and MRP5-mediated cGMP Transport--
Many
studies have investigated the effects of a wide variety of compounds on
the transport of cyclic nucleotides (2-10, 17, 31). Fig.
7A shows the inhibition of
endogenous, MRP4-, or MRP5-mediated cGMP efflux by a range of
compounds. Probenecid (0.5 mM), sulfinpyrazone (0.5 mM), bromosulfophthalein (50 µM), bromphenol
blue (150 µM), rose bengal (100 µM), and
indocyanine green (100 µM) inhibited both the endogenous
and MRP4-mediated cGMP efflux but MRP5 most effectively.
PGA1 (10 µg/ml) and PGE1 (10 µg/ml)
strongly inhibited the endogenous and MRP4-mediated efflux cGMP,
whereas only PGA1 strongly inhibited MRP5-mediated efflux.
The steroids progesterone (100 µM) and estramustine (100 µM) inhibited the endogenous and the MRP5-mediated cGMP
efflux strongly, but only progesterone inhibited MRP4. In contrast,
dexamethasone (150 µM) was only a moderate inhibitor of
cGMP efflux in all cell lines. The PDE5 inhibitors zaprinast (10 µM), sildenafil (10 µM), and trequinsin (10 µM) were poor inhibitors of cGMP efflux. Fig.
7B shows that none of the compounds tested strongly affected
the intracellular cGMP levels, excluding the possibility that a
decrease in cGMP production led to the observed decreases in cGMP
efflux. Because sildenafil, zaprinast, and trequinsin were reported to
be high affinity inhibitors of MRP5-mediated cGMP transport in
vesicular uptake (17), the lack of inhibition in our cells
was unexpected. This was not because these compounds did not enter the
cells, because they inhibited PDE activity in the absence of IBMX.
Incubation of HEK293 cells for 1 h with 10 µM each
of sildenafil, zaprinast, and trequinsin led to 30-, 20-, and 6-fold
increases in the intracellular cGMP levels, respectively. In contrast,
neither probenecid (0.5 mM) nor sulfinpyrazone (0.5 mM) increased the intracellular cGMP levels in the absence
of IBMX (data not shown).
Efflux of cAMP by MRP4 and MRP5--
Efflux of cAMP by HEK293
cells under control conditions was detected, but the levels were at the
limits of detection (extracellular 0.19 ± 0.14 pmol/106 cells/h and intracellular 14 ± 4 pmol/106 cells). Equivalent intracellular and extracellular
cAMP levels were found in all cells, and these levels were not altered
in the presence of SNP and IBMX (data not shown). Incubation with forskolin (100 µM) strongly induced cAMP production in
the HEK293 cells (extracellular 365 ± 130 pmol/106
cells/h and intracellular 1730 ± 185 pmol/106 cells).
Relative to the parental cells, efflux of cAMP was strongly increased
in the 5I and 4.63 cells, but MRP4 and MRP5 overexpression did not
result in a decrease in intracellular cAMP levels (Fig. 8).
Effect of GSH Depletion on Cyclic Nucleotide Transport by MRP4 and
MRP5--
Recently it was reported that depletion of intracellular GSH
led to decreased cAMP efflux from MRP4-overexpressing cells (23). In
contrast, we find no effect of GSH depletion on the resistance to PMEA
mediated by either
transporter.2 To determine
whether cGMP or cAMP efflux from HEK293 cells was dependent on
intracellular GSH, we depleted GSH by overnight incubation with BSO.
The HEK293, 4.63, and 5I cells showed a similar ~90% drop in
intracellular GSH/GSSG levels from 6.6 pmol of GSH/mg of protein
without BSO, to 0.4 pmol of GSH/mg of protein with BSO. Under these
conditions, there was no change in cyclic nucleotide transport by the
three cell lines (Fig. 9, A
and B), indicating that intracellular glutathione did not
influence the transport of cyclic nucleotides by MRP4, MRP5, or
endogenous transporters.
The cyclic nucleotides cGMP and cAMP are second messengers
involved in mediating the response to numerous stimuli, and large families of enzymes regulate their intracellular concentrations (reviewed in Ref. 1). Although the efflux of cyclic nucleotides from
cells has been recognized for decades, transporters capable of
mediating this process have only recently been identified. Several
reports have shown that both MRP4 and MRP5 transport cGMP and cAMP in
vesicular uptake experiments (15-17). We have investigated the efflux
of cyclic nucleotides from intact HEK293 cells and lines overexpressing
either MRP4 or MRP5 and found that both MRPs transport cGMP and cAMP
from intact cells in an ATP-dependent manner. Under the
experimental conditions used MRP5 exports cGMP somewhat faster from 293 cells than cAMP, whereas the reverse is true for MRP4 (see Fig. 8).
Neither cAMP nor cGMP transport was affected by GSH depletion, strongly
suggesting that GSH is not essential for cyclic nucleotide transport.
This contrasts with the MRP4-mediated cAMP efflux found by Lai and Tan
(23) but is consistent with the lack of GSH requirement in MRP4- and MRP5-mediated cGMP and cAMP transport in vesicular uptake studies (16).
Published kinetic analyses of MRP4- and MRP5-mediated cyclic nucleotide
transport in vesicular uptake have suggested that MRP4 has a high
affinity for both cGMP (Km = 9.7 µM) and cAMP (Km = 44.5 µM) (16), whereas
MRP5 has a very high affinity for cGMP (Km = 2.1 µM) and lower affinity for cAMP (Km = 379 µM) (17). In contrast, our results show that, in
intact cells, both MRP4 and MRP5 mediate low affinity extrusion of
cyclic nucleotides. In fact, MRP4 and MRP5 transport rates increased
nearly proportionally up to calculated intracellular concentrations of
~0.6 mM. The notion that cGMP and cAMP are low affinity
substrates in intact cells is supported by the observation that an
extra 10-fold increase in intracellular cGMP levels brought about by
addition of SNP to cells incubated with IBMX did not lead to any
further inhibition of PMEA efflux (Fig. 5). In addition, in vesicular
uptake studies we need almost millimolar concentrations of cGMP and
cAMP to inhibit MRP4 and MRP5 (32), supporting the finding that cGMP
and cAMP are relatively low affinity substrates for MRP4 and MRP5.
Possible reasons for this apparent difference in affinities between our
cGMP transport and that found by others are discussed elsewhere (32).
We consider our results with intact cells robust, and, because the
intact cell is the natural environment of these transporters, we
conclude that the apparent low affinities we find for MRP4 and MRP5
transport of cGMP is the relevant affinity in the in vivo situation.
In several reports it has been suggested that MRP-mediated cGMP and
cAMP efflux from cells might be able to reduce the intracellular concentrations of these second messengers following stimulation (4, 8,
9, 27, 33). In our experiments, however, MRP4- and MRP5-mediated cGMP
transport had only a marginal effect on intracellular cGMP. Our results
are in line with the conclusion that cyclic nucleotide efflux is not a
general mechanism by which cells control intracellular cyclic
nucleotide levels. This conclusion was also reached in studies
comparing the rate of cGMP hydrolysis by various PDE iso-enzymes with
the rate of cGMP efflux by aortic smooth muscle cells (34, 35) and is
further substantiated by observations that inhibition of efflux, even
combined with PDE inhibition, did not result in increased intracellular
cyclic nucleotide concentrations (2, 4, 7, 8, 10). Taken together,
these findings suggest that intracellular cyclic nucleotide levels are
controlled by a combination of feedback inactivation of GC and
regulation of PDE activity (29, 30, 36, 37) rather than by extrusion of
cyclic nucleotides by MRPs. In the light of the apparent low affinity
of MRP4 and MRP5 for cyclic nucleotides in intact cells, these
transporters would only be expected to make a modest contribution to
the lowering of intracellular cyclic nucleotide peak concentrations
levels under extreme conditions or in cells that lack sufficient PDE
activity and/or GC feedback inhibition.
With the exception of its role in the development of the multicellular
form of Dictyostelium discoideum (38) the extracellular function of cyclic nucleotides remains unclear. D. discoideum has at least four cAMP receptors, but vertebrate
orthologs have yet to be identified. There are, however, reports
showing that cGMP and cAMP influence several processes in cultured
cells. In cultured mouse cerebellar neurons extracellular cGMP
inhibited a kainate-activated response and in rat astrocytes cGMP
inhibited a Na+/H+ exchanger (13, 14). In the
kidney, extracellular conversion of cAMP to adenosine could also be
involved in receptor-mediated effects on renal function (39, 40). The
localization of MRP4 in the brush-border membrane of proximal tubule
cells and the high renal expression of MRP5 is compatible with a role
for these pumps in renal homeostasis. Because excretion of cGMP by the
kidney keeps plasma levels is low (3), this would enable locally and temporally increased cyclic nucleotide levels to act as signaling events. There are also reports suggesting that cGMP has systemic effects. For instance, during pregnancy plasma cGMP levels increase (41), and relapsed cervical cancer patients have somewhat elevated cGMP
levels (42).
Several studies have investigated the effects of a wide variety of
compounds on the efflux of cyclic nucleotides from different cell
types. Similar to previous reports (4, 7, 8, 43) we found that 0.5 mM probenecid inhibited cGMP efflux from HEK293 cells. This
was due to inhibition of MRP4 and MRP5 as well as endogenous
transporters. In addition, bromphenol blue and bromosulfophthalein were
strong inhibitors of MRP5 and endogenous transporters but weaker
inhibitors of MRP4. Rose bengal inhibited both MRP4 and MRP5 but had
less influence on endogenous efflux, whereas indocyanine green strongly
inhibited all efflux.
Prostaglandins have been reported to inhibit cyclic nucleotide efflux
from several cell types. Both prostaglandin A1
(PGA1) and PGE1 inhibited cAMP efflux from
avian erythrocytes, whereas only PGA1 inhibited cAMP efflux
from C-6 rat glioma cells (43-45). In our HEK293 cells
PGA1 inhibited the cyclic nucleotide efflux mediated by
MRP4 and MRP5, as well as endogenous efflux, whereas PGE1
inhibited MRP4 and endogenous transport more potently than MRP5
transport. Intracellular PGA1 is readily converted to a
glutathione conjugate (PGA1-SG), and this conjugate most
likely inhibits the cAMP efflux from erythrocytes (10). Because MRP1, a
transporter closely related to MRP4/5, has been shown to transport
PGA1-SG (46), it is likely that PGA1-SG
partially inhibits the cGMP efflux in our cells. In contrast,
PGE1 does not form a glutathione conjugate showing that
glutathione conjugation is not a required for inhibition.
Prostaglandins are poorly membrane permeable (47) but must be secreted
to act as local hormones. Our inhibition data suggest that some
prostaglandins are MRP4 and MRP5 substrates and that these transporters
might be involved in prostaglandin secretion. In this respect it is
noteworthy that indocyanine green, which inhibited the cGMP efflux by
MRP4 and MRP5, has been used to inhibit prostaglandin transport (48),
further supporting the idea that the MRPs may be involved in
prostaglandin secretion.
More recently, Sundkvist et al. (31) reported that several
steroid-based compounds potently inhibit the ATP-dependent
cGMP transport into vesicles derived from human erythrocytes. They reported an inhibition constant (Ki) of 1.7 µM for progesterone and a Ki of 0.2 µM for the structurally related mifepristone. We found
that progesterone inhibited the cGMP efflux from all cells studied to a
similar extent. Estramustine, a structurally related drug used in the
treatment of prostate cancer, also inhibited transport, especially that
mediated by MRP5. These data raise the possibility, that, like
prostaglandins, steroid hormones might be physiological substrates of
MRP4 and MRP5. Our results show that HEK293 cells contain endogenous
transporters for cGMP that differ in their affinities for inhibitors
from MRP4 and MRP5. Because MRP4 and MRP5 are detected in parental 293 cells (21), they may be in part responsible for the endogenous cyclic
nucleotide efflux. Two recently identified MRPs, MRP8 and MRP9
(49-51), might also contribute, although their substrate specificity
remains to be determined.
In their report of MRP5-mediated cGMP transport into vesicles,
Jedlitschky et al. (17) found that the PDE inhibitors
sildenafil, trequinsin, and zaprinast were particularly potent
inhibitors of MRP5. In contrast, we did not observe any appreciable
inhibition of the cGMP efflux with either sildenafil or trequinsin.
Neither the endogenous nor the MRP4- and MRP5-mediated cGMP efflux was inhibited using relatively high concentrations (10 µM),
and only slight inhibition was observed in the presence of zaprinast.
Because the concentration of sildenafil that we used inhibited PDE in our cells and is similar to the clinically attained plasma
concentration (52), we conclude that inhibition of MRP4 and MRP5 does
not significantly contribute to the characteristic increase of
intracellular cGMP levels that is brought about by sildenafil. The
inhibition of MRP4 and MRP5 by some inhibitors, such as PR, SP, and TQ,
but not by all (e.g. ICG or PGA1), tended to
increase the intracellular cGMP levels, and this was comparable to the
2-fold decrease in intracellular cGMP levels mediated by these pumps
in the absence of inhibitors (Fig. 3).
In summary, we have shown that MRP4 and MRP5 transport cAMP and cGMP
from intact cells with low affinity in an ATP-dependent, but GSH-independent, manner. Overexpression of MRP4 and MRP5 did not
lead to a substantial decrease in intracellular cGMP and cAMP levels,
even when these levels were high. Conversely, when transport by MRP4
and MPR5 was inhibited this did not lead to substantial increases in
intracellular cGMP levels. Our results suggest that cyclic nucleotide
efflux by MRP4 and MRP5 does not play a role in modulating
intracellular signals that are propagated through cGMP or cAMP.
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
was from Sanver Tech
(Heerhugowaard, The Netherlands).
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
View larger version (23K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
cGMP extruded from parental HEK293 and MRP5-
and MRP4-overexpressing cells. A shows parental HEK293
(293, white bar) cells and lines overexpressing MRP5 (5I,
black bar) or MRP4 (4.63, gray bar) incubated for
1 h in HBSS at 37 °C after which extracellular cGMP levels were
determined. Data are the means of three experiments ± S.E. In
B the protein levels of MRP5 (upper panel) and
MRP4 (lower panel) are shown for 293 parental cells and the
5I- and 5E-transfected, and 4.63- and 4.3-transfected cells,
respectively.
(6, 27, 28), reported for other cell types
(e.g. neuronal and colon cells) to induce cGMP synthesis,
did not stimulate cGMP production in our HEK293 cells (data not shown).
Added extracellularly, cGMP was stable for at least 4 h in our
incubation medium (with cells), showing that the amounts of cGMP
reported here reflect the actual amounts exported from the cells.
View larger version (17K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Effect of SNP and IBMX on cGMP levels in
parental HEK293 cells and extrusion of cGMP from these cells.
Parental HEK293 cells were treated with combinations of SNP (1 mM, light gray bar), IBMX (1 mM,
dark gray bar), SNP with IBMX (black bar), and
vehicle (white bar) for 1 h after which the
(A) extracellular and (B) intracellular cGMP
levels were determined. Data are the means of three experiments ± S.E.
View larger version (25K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
Extracellular and intracellular cGMP in
parental, MRP4- and MRP5-overexpressing HEK293 cells in the presence of
IBMX and SNP. Parental HEK293 cells and HEK293 cells
overexpressing MRP5 (5I and 5E) and MRP4 (4.3 and 4.63) were treated
with IBMX (1 mM) in the absence (A) and presence
(B) of SNP (1 mM). Extracellular and
intracellular cGMP levels were determined after 1 h (white
bars) and 4 h (gray bars) of incubation. Data
represent the means of five experiments ± S.E., except for the 5E
and 4.63 cells which represent the means of three experiments ± S.E. Note the difference in scale between A and
B.
View larger version (16K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
MRP4- and MRP5-mediated cGMP excretion under
various conditions. Extracellular cGMP levels were determined
after incubating cells for 1 h in medium without additions
(white bars) or with 1 mM SNP (light gray
bars), 1 mM IBMX (dark gray bars), or SNP
plus IBMX (black bars). Extracellular cGMP levels are
expressed relative to the extracellular cGMP levels found for the
parental 293 cells. Data are the means of three experiments ± S.E.
View larger version (17K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
Effect of IBMX on the PMEA efflux from HEK293
cells. Efflux of [3H]PMEA from parental HEK293
(circles), 5I (squares), and 4.63 (triangles) cells following pre-loading with the PMEA
prodrug bis(POM)[3H]PMEA. Efflux into fresh medium
was carried out in the absence (solid lines) and presence
(broken lines) of IBMX (1 mM). In A
the efflux is expressed as the percentage of the loaded amount. In
B the MRP4- and MRP5-specific transport is calculated by
subtracting the endogenous transport found in HEK293 and normalizing to
the amount of PMEA found at 120 min under control conditions. Data are
the means of three experiments ± S.E.
View larger version (16K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 6.
Efflux of cGMP from HEK293 cells under
ATP-depleting conditions. After raising intracellular cGMP levels
with 1 mM IBMX and 1 mM SNP, the
time-dependent efflux for 293 (circles), 5I
(squares), and 4.63 (triangles) cells was
determined in complete medium (closed symbols) and in
ATP-depletion medium (open symbols). Data are the means of
two experiments ± the difference from the mean.
View larger version (32K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 7.
Inhibition of cellular cGMP efflux by various
compounds in the presence of IBMX. Extracellular (A)
and intracellular cGMP (B) were determined after 1 h
for HEK293 (white bars), 5I (black bars), and
4.63 (gray bars) in the absence and presence of probenecid
(PR, 0.5 mM), sulfinpyrazone (SP, 0.5 mM), bromphenol blue (BPB, 150 µM), bromosulfophthalein (BSP, 50 µM), rose bengal (RoseB, 100 µM), indocyanine green (ICG, 100 µM), prostaglandin A1 (PGA1, 10 µg/ml), PGE1 (PGE1, 10 µg/ml), progesterone
(PROG, 100 µM), estramustine
(ESTRA, 100 µM), dexamethasone
(DEX, 150 µM), zaprinast (ZP, 10 µM), sildenafil (SL, 10 µM), and
trequensin (TQ, 10 µM). Production of cGMP was
induced with 1 mM SNP and IBMX. The efflux in A
is expressed relative to transport without inhibitor, and note that the
MRP4- and MRP5-specific transport of 5I and 4.63 cells is calculated by
subtracting the endogenous transport. In B the intracellular
cGMP levels are given relative to the level when no additions were
done. Data are the means of two experiments plus or minus the
difference from the mean, except for rose bengal, indocyanine green,
PGA1, PGE1, progesterone, and estramustine,
which are the means of three determinations ± S.E.
View larger version (11K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 8.
Extrusion of cAMP from MRP4- and
MRP5-overexpressing cells. Intracellular and extracellular cAMP
levels were determined after incubating HEK293 (white bars),
5I (black bars), and 4.63 cells (gray bars) for
1 h in medium with forskolin (100 µM) and IBMX (1 mM). The levels are expressed relative to parental HEK293
cells. Data are the means of three experiments ± S.E.
View larger version (16K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 9.
Effect of GSH depletion on cAMP and cGMP
efflux from MRP4- and MRP5-overexpressing cells. After overnight
incubation of cells in growth medium without or with BSO (40 µM), either intracellular cAMP was raised by incubation
with 100 µM forskolin and 1 mM IMBX
(A) or cGMP was raised with 1 mM SNP and 1 mM IBMX (B). After a 1-h incubation, cAMP and
cGMP were determined in the medium. cAMP (A) and cGMP
(B) levels for the 5I cells (black bars) and 4.63 cells (gray bars) were expressed relative to the levels
found for the HEK293 parental cells (white bars) when no BSO
was added. Data are the means of two experiments plus or minus the
difference from the mean plus and minus BSO.
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
---|
We thank Hugo de Jonge (Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands) and Jan de Vente (University of Maastricht, The Netherlands) for helpful suggestions and discussions and Hein te Riele, Henk de Vries, and Noam Zelcer for reading the manuscript.
![]() |
FOOTNOTES |
---|
* This work was supported by Dutch Cancer Society Grants NKI 2001-2473 and NKI 1998-1764.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.:
31-20-512-2880; Fax: 31-20-669-1383; E-mail: p.borst@nki.nl.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, March 13, 2003, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M212723200
2 P. R. Wielinga, I. van der Heijden, G. Reid, J. H. Beijnen, J. Wijnholds, and P. Borst, unpublished results.
![]() |
ABBREVIATIONS |
---|
The abbreviations used are: GC, guanylate cyclase; AC, adenylate cyclase; BSO, buthionine sulfoximine; BSP, bromosulfophthalein; ESTRA, estramustine; ICG, indocyanine green; IBMX, 3-isobutyl-1-methylxanthine; GSH, glutathione; HBSS, Hanks' buffered salt solution; NO, nitric oxide; SNP, sodium nitroprusside; PDE, phosphodiesterases; PMEA, 9-(2-phosphonylmethoxyethyl) adenosine; bis(POM)PMEA, bis(pivaloyloxymethyl)-9-(2-phosphonylmethoxyethyl)adenine; PR, probenecid; PGA1, prostaglandin A1; PGE1, prostaglandin E1; SP, sulfinpyrazone; TQ, trequensin; DEX, dexamethasone; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline.
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
1. | Beavo, J. A., and Brunton, L. L. (2002) Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 3, 710-718[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
2. | Ardaillou, N., Placier, S., Wahbe, F., Ronco, P., and Ardaillou, R. (1993) Exp. Nephrol. 1, 253-260[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
3. | Broadus, A. E., Kaminsky, N. I., Hardman, J. G., Sutherland, E. W., and Liddle, G. W. (1970) J. Clin. Invest. 49, 2222-2236[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
4. |
Hamet, P.,
Pang, S. C.,
and Tremblay, J.
(1989)
J. Biol. Chem.
264,
12364-12369 |
5. |
Li, Y.,
Maher, P.,
and Schubert, D.
(1997)
J. Cell Biol.
139,
1317-1324 |
6. | Montoliu, C., Llansola, M., Kosenko, E., Corbalan, R., and Felipo, V. (1999) Neuropharmacology 38, 1883-1891[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
7. | Patel, M. J., Wypij, D. M., Rose, D. A., Rimele, T. J., and Wiseman, J. S. (1995) J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 273, 16-25[Abstract] |
8. |
Tjornhammar, M. L.,
Lazaridis, G.,
and Bartfai, T.
(1983)
J. Biol. Chem.
258,
6882-6886 |
9. | Wu, X. B., Brune, B., Von Appen, F., and Ullrich, V. (1993) Mol. Pharmacol. 43, 564-568[Abstract] |
10. |
Heasley, L. E.,
and Brunton, L. L.
(1985)
J. Biol. Chem.
260,
11514-11519 |
11. | Bowes, C., Li, T., Danciger, M., Baxter, L. C., Applebury, M. L., and Farber, D. B. (1990) Nature 347, 677-680[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
12. | Lolley, R. N., Farber, D. B., Rayborn, M. E., and Hollyfield, J. G. (1977) Science 196, 664-666[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
13. |
Poulopoulou, C.,
and Nowak, L. M.
(1998)
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.
286,
99-109 |
14. | Touyz, R. M., Picard, S., Schiffrin, E. L., and Deschepper, C. F. (1997) J. Neurochem. 68, 1451-1461[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
15. |
van Aubel, R. A.,
Smeets, P. H.,
Peters, J. G.,
Bindels, R. J.,
and Russel, F. G.
(2002)
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.
13,
595-603 |
16. |
Chen, Z. S.,
Lee, K.,
and Kruh, G. D.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
33747-33754 |
17. |
Jedlitschky, G.,
Burchell, B.,
and Keppler, D.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
30069-30074 |
18. | Borst, P., Evers, R., Kool, M., and Wijnholds, J. (1999) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1461, 347-357[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
19. | Keppler, D., Leier, I., and Jedlitschky, G. (1997) Biol. Chem. 378, 787-791[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
20. | Schuetz, J. D., Connelly, M. C., Sun, D., Paibir, S. G., Flynn, P. M., Srinivas, R. V., Kumar, A., and Fridland, A. (1999) Nat. Med. 5, 1048-1051[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
21. |
Wielinga, P. R.,
Reid, G.,
Challa, E. E.,
Van Der Heijden, I.,
van Deemter, L.,
de Haas, M.,
Mol, C.,
Kuil, A. J.,
Groeneveld, E.,
Schuetz, J. D.,
Brouwer, C.,
De Abreu, R. A.,
Wijnholds, J.,
Beijnen, J. H.,
and Borst, P.
(2002)
Mol. Pharmacol.
62,
1321-1331 |
22. |
Wijnholds, J.,
Mol, C. A.,
van Deemter, L.,
de Haas, M.,
Scheffer, G. L.,
Baas, F.,
Beijnen, J. H.,
Scheper, R. J.,
Hatse, S.,
De Clercq, E.,
Balzarini, J.,
and Borst, P.
(2000)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
97,
7476-7481 |
23. | Lai, L., and Tan, T. M. (2002) Biochem. J. 361, 497-503[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
24. | Sundkvist, E., Jaeger, R., and Sager, G. (2000) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1463, 121-130[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
25. |
Chen, Z. S.,
Lee, K.,
Walther, S.,
Raftogianis, R. B.,
Kuwano, M.,
Zeng, H.,
and Kruh, G. D.
(2002)
Cancer Res.
62,
3144-3150 |
26. | Tietze, F. (1969) Anal. Biochem. 27, 502-522[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
27. | Crane, J. K. (2000) Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 376, 163-170[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
28. | Pedraza, C. E., Baltrons, M. A., and Garcia, A. (2001) FEBS Lett. 507, 303-306[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
29. | Murthy, K. S. (2001) Biochem. J. 360, 199-208[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
30. | Soderling, S. H., and Beavo, J. A. (2000) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 12, 174-179[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
31. | Sundkvist, E., Jaeger, R., and Sager, G. (2002) Biochem. Pharmacol. 63, 945-949[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
32. |
Reid, G.,
Wielinga, P. R.,
de Haas, M.,
van Deemter, L.,
Beijnen, J.,
Wijnholds, J.,
Balzarini, J.,
and Borst, P.
(2003)
Mol. Pharmacol.
63 (5),
1094-1103 |
33. | Stoos, B. A., and Garvin, J. L. (1997) Biochem. Pharmacol. 53, 631-636[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
34. | Ahlstrom, M., and Lamberg-Allardt, C. (1999) Biochem. Pharmacol. 58, 1335-1340[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
35. | Mercapide, J., Santiago, E., Alberdi, E., and Martinez-Irujo, J. J. (1999) Biochem. Pharmacol. 58, 1675-1683[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
36. | Okada, D., and Asakawa, S. (2002) Biochemistry 41, 9672-9679[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
37. |
Bakre, M. M.,
Ghanekar, Y.,
and Visweswariah, S. S.
(2000)
Eur. J. Biochem.
267,
179-187 |
38. | Van Haastert, P. J., and Kuwayama, H. (1997) FEBS Lett. 410, 25-28[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
39. | Bankir, L., Ahloulay, M., Devreotes, P. N., and Parent, C. A. (2002) Am. J. Physiol. 282, F376-F392 |
40. | Jackson, E. K., and Dubey, R. K. (2001) Am. J. Physiol. 281, F597-F612 |
41. | Conrad, K. P., Kerchner, L. J., and Mosher, M. D. (1999) Am. J. Physiol. 277, F48-F57[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
42. | Orbo, A., Jaeger, R., and Sager, G. (1998) Eur. J. Cancer 34, 1460-1462[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
43. | Rindler, M. J., Bashor, M. M., Spitzer, N., and Saier, M. H., Jr. (1978) J. Biol. Chem. 253, 5431-5436[Abstract] |
44. | Brunton, L. L., and Heasley, L. E. (1988) Methods Enzymol. 159, 83-93[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
45. | Heasley, L. E., Azari, J., and Brunton, L. L. (1985) Mol. Pharmacol. 27, 60-65[Abstract] |
46. | Evers, R., Cnubben, N. H., Wijnholds, J., van Deemter, L., van Bladeren, P. J., and Borst, P. (1997) FEBS Lett. 419, 112-116[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
47. | Schuster, V. L. (1998) Annu. Rev. Physiol. 60, 221-242[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
48. | Kanai, N., Lu, R., Satriano, J. A., Bao, Y., Wolkoff, A. W., and Schuster, V. L. (1995) Science 268, 866-869[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
49. | Tammur, J., Prades, C., Arnould, I., Rzhetsky, A., Hutchinson, A., Adachi, M., Schuetz, J. D., Swoboda, K. J., Ptacek, L. J., Rosier, M., Dean, M., and Allikmets, R. (2001) Gene (Amst.) 273, 89-96[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
50. | Bera, T. K., Lee, S., Salvatore, G., Lee, B., and Pastan, I. (2001) Mol. Med. 7, 509-516[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
51. | Yabuuchi, H., Shimizu, H., Takayanagi, S., and Ishikawa, T. (2001) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 288, 933-939[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
52. |
Corbin, J. D.,
Turko, I. V.,
Beasley, A.,
and Francis, S. H.
(2000)
Eur. J. Biochem.
267,
2760-2767 |