Presenilin-1 and Presenilin-2 Exhibit Distinct yet Overlapping {gamma}-Secretase Activities*

Ming-Tain Lai {ddagger} §, Elizabeth Chen {ddagger}, Ming-Chih Crouthamel {ddagger}, Jillian DiMuzio-Mower {ddagger}, Min Xu {ddagger}, Qian Huang {ddagger}, Eric Price {ddagger}, R. Bruce Register {ddagger}, Xiao-Ping Shi {ddagger}, Dorit B. Donoviel ¶ ||, Alan Bernstein ¶, Daria Hazuda {ddagger}, Stephen J. Gardell {ddagger} ** and Yue-Ming Li {ddagger} § {ddagger}{ddagger}

From the {ddagger}Department of Biological Chemistry, Merck Research Laboratories, West Point, Pennsylvania 19486 and Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario M5G-1X5, Canada

Received for publication, January 29, 2003 , and in revised form, April 7, 2003.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Presenilin-1 (PS1) and presenilin 2 (PS2) are proposed to be transmembrane aspartyl proteases that cleave amyloid precursor protein and Notch. PS1- and PS2-mediated activities were individually characterized using blastocyst-derived (BD) cells and membranes from PS1+/-PS2/ and PS1/PS2+/+ mice, respectively. The relative amounts of PS1 and PS2 in the various BD cells were determined from the intensities of the anti-PS1 and anti-PS2 immunoblot signals by comparison with standard curves using radiolabeled PS1 and PS2 standards produced by in vitro transcription and translation. Cellular membranes from wild type, PS1/PS2+/+, and PS1+/-PS2/ but not PS1/PS2/ BD cells generated the A{beta}40 and A{beta}42 products from the C100FLAG substrate. PS1-associated {gamma}-secretase displays considerably higher specific activity than PS2-associated {gamma}-secretase. Moreover, the PS1+/PS2/ BD cells and corresponding membranes exhibited much higher {gamma}-secretase activity as compared with other BD cells and membranes. The PS1-mediated {gamma}-secretase activity correlated better with the amount of PS1 that is modifiable by a photoactivated active site-directed {gamma}-secretase inhibitor rather than total PS1; hence, only a small portion (<14%) of the PS1 in wild-type membranes appears to be engaged in an active {gamma}-secretase complex. This finding suggests that PS1 may serve other biological functions in addition to that associated with its {gamma}-secretase activity. Furthermore, the PS1 {gamma}-secretase complex and the PS2 {gamma}-secretase complex activities can be discriminated on the basis of their susceptibility to inhibition by a potent {gamma}-secretase inhibitor. The distinct yet overlapping enzymatic properties of the PS1 {gamma}-secretase complex and the PS2 {gamma}-secretase complex imply that these two putative aspartyl class proteases may contribute to different biological processes.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Presenilin-1 (PS1)1 and presenilin-2 (PS2) are homologous (67% identity) polytopic membrane-spanning proteins that are endoproteolytically processed to form heterodimers. PS1 and PS2 were identified by their association with early onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) in humans. Autosomal dominant inheritance of mutations in the PS1 gene is the most common cause of familial early onset Alzheimer's disease (1). Familial early onset Alzheimer's disease-associated mutations are also present in PS2, although they are far less prevalent than in PS1 (2). In addition to their purported role in the regulation of amyloid precursor protein (APP) processing, the presenilins have been implicated in Notch signaling, Wnt/{beta}-catenin signaling, apoptosis, capacitative calcium entry (3), and ErbB-4-mediated signaling (4). Moreover, PS1 and PS2 are closely related to the Caenorhabditis elegans protein, sel-12, which is involved in cell fate decisions (5).

APP is processed by two proteases, {beta}-secretase and {gamma}-secretase, that generate the N and C termini of the A{beta}-peptides, respectively (6). The A{beta}-peptides are generally 40 or 42 amino acids in length (A{beta}40 and A{beta}42, respectively). A{beta}42 is more prone to aggregation and is believed to be a pivotal player in the etiology of AD. There is considerable evidence showing that the presenilins are closely associated with {gamma}-secretase-mediated cleavage. Firstly, familial early onset Alzheimer's disease mutations in PS1 and PS2 cause increased production of A{beta}42 in transfected cells or transgenic mice. Secondly, isolated cultured neurons derived from PS1-deficient mice accumulate APP fragments that fail to be processed by {gamma}-secretase (7, 8). Thirdly, {gamma}-secretase activity is abolished in cultured cells derived from mice that are deficient in both PS1 and PS2 (9, 10). Fourthly, mutagenesis of two conserved aspartates in the transmembrane regions of PS1 significantly reduces {gamma}-secretase activity (11). Thus, it was proposed that PS1 is either a unique diaspartyl cofactor for {gamma}-secretase or is itself {gamma}-secretase, an intramembranous aspartyl protease. Finally, biochemical evidence that PS1 and PS2 contain the active sites of {gamma}-secretase was obtained from studies in which presenilins were covalently modified by active site-directed {gamma}-secretase inhibitors (12, 13)

Although both PS1 and/or PS2 are essential for the {gamma}-secretase-mediated cleavage, the dramatically different phenotypes of the PS1-deficient and PS2-deficient mice suggest that these proteins play disparate roles. The PS1-deficient mice exhibit severe developmental defects and perinatal lethality (14, 15), whereas the PS2-deficient mice are viable and fertile and develop only mild pulmonary fibrosis and hemorrhage with increasing age (16). PS1 and PS2 transcripts are present in a wide variety of mammalian tissues; however, the levels of mRNA vary significantly and independently among tissues and during brain development (17). The marked sequence divergence of the putative cytosolic domains in PS1 and PS2 probably enable them to interact with different perhaps overlapping intracellular binding partners. Consistent with this notion, PS1 and PS2 appear to engage in independent high molecular weight protein complexes (18). A functional redundancy between PS1 and PS2 is apparent from the ability of either protein to rescue the egg-laying defect of C. elegans hermaphrodites lacking sel-12 (5). However, the differences/similarities of the PS1 and PS2-mediated {gamma}-secretase activities have yet to be fully elucidated.

In this investigation, we aimed to compare the {gamma}-secretase activities mediated by PS1 and PS2. Blastocyst-derived (BD) cells from wild-type, PS1/PS2+/+, PS1+/PS2/, and PS1/PS2/ mice (19) were used to prepare cellular membranes that were evaluated with an in vitro {gamma}-secretase assay (20). In addition, these BD cell lines were transiently transfected with an expression construct encoding the C-terminal fragment of APP (C-100) and the levels of secreted A{beta} were measured. Importantly, the {gamma}-secretase activities associated with the PS1+/PS2/ BD cells and PS1/PS2+/+ BD cells are mediated exclusively by the PS1 {gamma}-secretase complex and the PS2 {gamma}-secretase complex, respectively. This assertion is supported by the absence of {gamma}-secretase activity associated with the PS1 and PS2 doubly deficient BD cells.


    EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
In Vitro Transcription/Translation and Standardization of the Reactivities of Anti-PS1 and Anti-PS2 Antibodies—Murine PS1 and PS2 cDNAs were cloned into the pSP64 vector (Promega, Madison, WI). Vector DNA (1 and 2 µg of the PS1 and PS2 constructs, respectively) was heated at 75 °C for 10 min and placed on ice. The vector DNA was then added to 40 µl of TNT Quick Master mixture (Promega), 2 µl of L-[35S]methionine (Amersham Biosciences), and 0.6 µl of canine microsomal membranes (Promega). The reaction mixtures were incubated at 30 °C for 90 min and then spun in a Microcentrifuge (14,000 rpm) for 10 min. The pellet was washed with 1 ml of cold phosphate-buffered saline and then resuspended in 20 µl of SDS sample buffer. The products were separated by SDS-PAGE and transferred to PVDF membranes. The PVDF membrane was placed on the PhosphorImager plate for 18 h and analyzed with a Storm860 PhosphorImager (Amersham Biosciences). The amounts of the presenilins deduced from the phosphorimaging signals were normalized for the number of methionines in the murine PS1 and PS2 proteins. After the [35S]Met signal was assessed, the blot was rewetted and analyzed by Western analysis using rabbit anti-PS1-NTF (number 7436 raised against PS1 residues 1–25) and anti-PS2-CTF antibodies (PC235, Oncogene). Western blotting signals were detected with the Enhanced Chemifluorescent kit for the PhosphorImager. Correlation between the amounts of PS1 and PS2 with the intensities of the corresponding immunosignals was used to calculate the relative sensitivities of the activities of the PS1 and PS2 immunoblot assays.

Blastocyst-derived Cultures and Cell Membranes—Blastocyst-derived cells from PS1+/+PS2+/+, PS1+/PS2/, PS1/PS2+/+, and PS1/PS2/ blastocyst cultures were obtained as described previously (10). Cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium containing 15% fetal bovine serum and murine leukemia inhibitory factor. BD cell membranes were prepared as described previously (20) with the exception that the cells were broken with a Dounce homogenizer. Protein concentration was determined using a Bio-Rad DC protein assay kit with bovine serum albumin as a protein standard.

Immunoblotting Analysis of the BD Cell Membranes—Cellular membranes containing PS1 and PS2 were fractionated by 12% SDS-PAGE and electrotransferred to PVDF membranes. The PVDF membranes were probed for the presence of PS1 and PS2 with rabbit anti-PS1-NTF and rabbit anti-PS2-CTF antibodies, respectively. Western blotting signals were detected using the Enhanced Chemifluorescent kit for the PhosphorImager as described above. Methods for immunoprecipitation, in vitro {gamma}-secretase assay, A{beta} assay, and photoaffinity labeling of membrane proteins were carried out as described elsewhere (12, 20).


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
PS2 Does Not Reside in the PS1-containing {gamma}-Secretase Complex—Our previous study (20) demonstrated that anti-PS1 antibody sequestered {gamma}-secretase activity from detergent-solubilized HeLa cell membranes. Further analysis of the PS1 immunoprecipitate shows that PS2 is not present (Fig. 1). After two cycles of immunoprecipitation with anti-PS1 antibodies, there is no detectable PS1 in the supernatant, whereas the PS2 level is not changed as compared with the normal IgG control. These data establish that PS2 is not engaged in the PS1-containing complex that displays {gamma}-secretase activity.



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 1.
PS1 and PS2 do not coexist in a detergent-solubilized protein complex. CHAPSO-solubilized {gamma}-secretase from HeLa cell membranes was subjected to immunoprecipitation (IP) with normal IgG or anti-PS1-NTF IgG ({alpha}PS1) and immobilized protein G-Sepharose. Western blot analysis used anti-PS1-NTF and anti-PS2-CTF to probe the PS1 and PS2 proteins, respectively, in the supernatants and immunoprecipitates from the first and second IP cycles.

 

Correlation of Anti-PS1 and Anti-PS2 Antibody Signals with Relative Protein Abundance—To more fully compare PS1- and PS2-mediated {gamma}-secretase activities, we sought to determine the relative amounts of PS1 and PS2 in the different BD cell lines. Radiolabeled PS1 and PS2 standards were produced by in vitro transcription/translation (TNT) of the corresponding murine presenilin cDNAs in the presence of [35S]Met. The radiolabeled TNT products were fractionated by SDS-PAGE and transferred to PVDF membranes. Fig. 2A, upper panel, shows the phosphorimages of PVDF membranes containing increasing amounts of the radiolabeled TNT products generated with the murine PS1 and PS2 constructs. Murine PS1 and PS2 contain 13 and 17 methionines, respectively. Equal intensity of phosphorimaging signals (after normalization for the different number of methionines in PS1 and PS2) is indicative of equal amounts of protein. The very same blots containing the TNT products were also probed with the anti-PS1-NTF or anti-PS2-CTF antibodies (Fig. 2A, lower panel). The exposure time for the immunoblot signal (5 min) was much shorter than the exposure time for the [35S]Met signal (16 h, no signal was observed after3hof exposure); hence, the immunoblot signal is not corrupted by the [35S]Met signal. The intensities of the anti-PS1-NTF and anti-PS2-CTF immunoblot signals as a function of the amounts of PS1 and PS2, respectively, are depicted in Fig. 2B. We conclude that the immunoblot protocol for detection of PS2-CTF is ~1.8-fold more sensitive than the corresponding immunoblot protocol for detection of PS1-NTF.



View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 2.
Assessment of the relative abundance of PS1 and PS2 from the intensities of their respective immunoblot signals. A, [35S]Met phosphorimaging (upper panels) and immunoblot signals (lower panels) from in vitro TNT products (synthesized in the presence of [35S]Met) using the murine PS1 and murine PS2 cDNAs. The TNT products were fractionated by SDS-PAGE and transferred to PVDF membranes for phosphorimaging analysis. Lanes 1–6 contain 0, 1.25, 2.5, 3.75, 5.0, and 10 µl, respectively, of the TNT reactions for PS1 (left side) and PS2 (right side). In addition, the PVDF membranes shown in the left and right upper panels were probed with the anti-PS1-NTF and anti-PS2-CTF antibodies, respectively (results shown in left and right lower panels, respectively). B, the relative sensitivities of the PS1 and PS2 immunoblot assays were determined by correlating the intensities of the [35S]Met phosphorimaging and immunoblotting signals. The [35S]Met emission signals were corrected for the different numbers of methionines in murine PS1 and murine PS2. From the slopes, it can be deduced that the PS2 immunoblot assay is ~1.8-fold more sensitive than the PS1 immunoblot assay.

 

Protein Levels of PS1 and PS2 in the BD Cells—Presenilin expression in the various BD cells was characterized by immunoblotting using anti-PS1-NTF and anti-PS2-CTF antibodies (Fig. 3A). Both PS1 and PS2 were detected in PS1+/+PS2+/+cell membranes (lanes 1 and 5, respectively). The relative amounts of PS1 and PS2 in the PS1+/+ PS2+/+ membranes were deduced by comparing each immunoreactive signal with the corresponding PS1 or PS2 immunoreactivity standard curves (Fig. 2C). Accordingly, the amount of PS2 in PS1+/+ PS2+/+ cell membranes appears to be 72% of the amount of PS1.



View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 3.
Quantitation of PS1 and PS2 in BD cell membranes. A, detection of PS1 and PS2 by immunoblot analysis using anti-PS1-NTF (lanes 1–4) and anti-PS2-CTF (lanes 5–8) antibodies. Cell membranes were analyzed from wild-type (lanes 1 and 5), PS1+/PS2/ (lanes 2 and 6), PS1/PS2+/+ (lanes 3 and 7), and PS1/PS2/ (lanes 4 and 8) BD cells. The amount of membrane protein loaded in each lane is shown. The normalized immunoblot signals for PS1 and PS2 were calculated based on the standard curve (as described in Fig. 2). These values were used to calculate the relative protein abundance of PS1 and PS2. B, detection of PS1 by immunoblot analysis using the anti-PS1-CTF antibody. Membranes were analyzed from PS1+/+PS2+/+ (lane 1) and PS1+/PS2/ (lane 2) BD cells. 10 µg of membrane protein was loaded in each lane.

 

PS1 but not PS2 was detected in PS1+/PS2/ membranes (lanes 2 and 6, respectively). Conversely, PS2 but not PS1 was detected in PS1/PS2+/+ cell membranes (lanes 3 and 7, respectively). Membranes from PS1/PS2/ BD cells do not possess protein species that cross-react with either the anti-PS1-NTF or anti-PS2-CTF antibodies (lanes 4 and 8, respectively). The PS1 level in PS1+/PS2/ cell membranes (lane 2) was only 6% of that seen with wild-type cell membranes (lane 1) (note the 10-fold higher protein load in lane 2 compared with lane 1). The dramatically lower levels of PS1 in the PS1+/PS2/ cell membranes as compared with the PS1+/+PS2+/+ cell membranes was confirmed by immunoblotting with the anti-PS1-CTF antibody (Fig. 3B). Comparative analysis of PS2 in PS1+/+PS2+/+ and PS1/ PS2+/+ cell membranes (lanes 5 and 7, respectively) reveals a 2.6-fold greater abundance of PS2 in the PS1-deficient cells.

In Vitro {gamma}-Secretase Activity Catalyzed by BD Cell Membranes—The {gamma}-secretase activities catalyzed by the various BD cell membranes were evaluated with the in vitro {gamma}-secretase assay using the recombinant substrate, C100/FLAG (20). PS1/PS2/ cell membranes fail to catalyze the formation of the 40- or 42-related cleavage products (data not shown). Importantly, this result signifies that all activity displayed by BD cell membranes using the in vitro {gamma}-secretase assay is attributable to PS1 or PS2. Despite the limited amount of PS1 present in the PS1+/PS2/ cell membranes (6% of the level in PS1+/+PS2+/+ cell membranes), the amount of total A{beta} generated by these membranes was 56% of that produced by PS1+/+PS2+/+ cell membranes (Table I). Likewise, membranes prepared from the PS1/PS2+/+ BD cells, which serve as a source of PS2 {gamma}-secretase activity, catalyze the formation of the A{beta}-peptides from C100/FLAG. However, total A{beta} generated by PS1/PS2+/+ cell membranes is only 11% of that produced by PS1+/+PS2+/+ cell membranes.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE I
In vitro and cellular {gamma}-secretase activity of BD cell lines

The concentrations of A{beta}-peptides were determined by the ECL assay using standard curves that were generated with synthetic A{beta}40- and A{beta}42-peptides. The data show the A{beta}40 and A{beta}42 levels as pM (mean ± S.D., n = 3).

 

Assessment of the in vitro {gamma}-secretase activities of the PS1+/PS2/ and PS1/PS2+/+ membranes coupled with the knowledge of the relative abundance of PS1 and PS2 in these membrane preparations (Fig. 3) allow estimates for the comparative enzymatic activities of the PS1 {gamma}-secretase complex and the PS2 {gamma}-secretase complex toward the C100/FLAG substrate (Table I). We conclude that the relative activity of the PS1 {gamma}-secretase complex (residing in the PS1+/PS2/ cell membranes) is 169-fold greater than that of the PS2 {gamma}-secretase complex (residing in the PS1/PS2+/+ cell membranes) when assayed with C100/FLAG. This conclusion rests on the assumption that PS1 and PS2 are fully engaged in the putative catalytically competent {gamma}-secretase macromolecular complex in these membranes.

The amount of A{beta}42 generated with PS1+/+PS2+/+ cell membranes was ~14% total A{beta} (Table I). PS1+/PS2/ and PS1/PS2+/+ cell membranes also catalyzed the formation of the A{beta}40- and A{beta}42-related species from C100/FLAG. The amount of A{beta}42 (relative to total A{beta}) produced by the PS1- and PS2-containing membranes is ~18 and 12%, respectively. Hence, the PS1 {gamma}-secretase complex may be slightly more proficient than the PS2 {gamma}-secretase at catalyzing the A{beta}42 cleavage event.

The previously mentioned comparison of the activities of PS1 and PS2 strongly suggests that the PS1 {gamma}-secretase complex is responsible for the bulk of the in vitro {gamma}-secretase activity catalyzed by PS1+/+PS2+/+ cell membranes. However, it is surprising that PS1+/+PS2+/+ and PS1+/-PS2/ cell membranes generate comparable amounts of total A{beta} (Table I) despite 16-fold more PS1 in the former cells compared with the latter cells. The apparent specific activity of the PS1 {gamma}-secretase complex in the PS1+/PS2/ cell membranes thus appears to exceed the apparent specific activity of the PS1 {gamma}-secretase complex in the PS1+/+PS2+/+ cell membranes. Varying the amount of the PS1+/+PS2+/+ cell membranes in the assay resulted in a proportional change in the amount of product formation (data not shown). Hence, the level of PS1 in the PS1+/+PS2+/+ cell membranes (when assayed at 2.5 µg) does not appear to simply overwhelm the capacity of the in vitro assay to detect PS1 activity.

{gamma}-Secretase Activity Displayed by BD Cells Expressing the C-terminal Fragment of APP—The various BD cells were transiently transfected with an expression vector encoding the APP fragment (C100) that corresponds to the membrane-bound C-terminal stub produced by {beta}-secretase cleavage. The BD cells were exposed to the C100 expression vector for 24 h, fresh medium was placed on the cells for an additional 24 h, and the conditioned medium was removed and assayed for A{beta}40 and A{beta}42. The BD cells were cotransfected with a vector encoding green fluorescent protein to control for differences with respect to transfection efficiency and posttransfection cell proliferation rate.

The amount of the A{beta}-peptides that accumulated in conditioned media of the various transfected BD cells (after normalizing for transfection efficiency based on the green fluorescent protein levels) is shown in Table I. The PS1/PS2/

BD cells fail to secrete A{beta}40 or A{beta}42 (data not shown), which is an observation that is consistent with previous reports (9, 10). Even though the level of PS1 protein in PS1+/PS2/ cells is only 6% of that found in PS1+/+PS2+/+ BD cells (Fig. 3A), the amounts of total A{beta} secreted by the former cells is 38% of that secreted by the latter cells. The level of PS2 protein in PS1/PS2+/+ BD cells is 2.6-fold higher than that in PS1+/+PS2+/+ BD cells; however, the former cells secrete only 30% A{beta} produced by the latter cells.

The relative cellular activity of the PS1 {gamma}-secretase complex (residing in PS1+/PS2/ BD cells) appears to be 38-fold greater than that of the PS2 {gamma}-secretase complex (residing in PS1/PS2+/+ BD cells). These results are consistent with the studies carried out with the BD cell membranes, indicating that PS1 exhibits higher relative activity in processing the C100/FLAG substrate. Furthermore, it suggests that secreted A{beta} from PS1+/+PS2+/+ cells is largely produced by PS1-mediated {gamma}-secretase activity.

The amount of A{beta}42 (relative to total A{beta}) secreted by PS1+/+PS2+/+ BD cells was ~13%. The corresponding percentages of A{beta}42 secreted by PS1+/PS2/ BD cells (exclusively PS1 cellular activity) and PS1/PS2+/+ BD cells (exclusively PS2 cellular activity) were ~9 and 14%, respectively. Hence, in direct opposition to studies with the cell membranes, it appears that the PS2 {gamma}-secretase complex in the cellular system may have a slightly greater propensity than the PS1 {gamma}-secretase complex to catalyze the A{beta}42-cleavage event.

PS1-mediated {gamma}-Secretase Activity Is Correlated with Abundance of the Photolabeled PS1 Species—The apparent low activity of PS1 in the PS1+/+PS2+/+ BD cells could result from either low specific activity of the PS1-associated {gamma}-secretase complex or from PS1 not being fully engaged in the catalytically active {gamma}-secretase complex. The active site-directed photoactivatable {gamma}-secretase inhibitor, Merck A (Fig. 4), which binds to the active form of enzyme (12), was used as a probe to assess the catalytic competency of PS1 in the BD cell membranes. Merck A displays similar inhibitory potency toward {gamma}-secretase activity in membranes prepared from PS1+/+-PS2+/+ and PS1+/PS2/ BD cells (data not shown). Equal amounts of protein from the different BD cell membranes were incubated with Merck A, and the samples were irradiated, leading to photolabeling of active {gamma}-secretase. The biotinylated proteins were isolated with streptavidin-beads and analyzed by Western blotting using anti-PS1 and anti-PS2 antibodies (Fig. 4). No labeled species were detected when the PS1/PS2/ cell membranes were treated similarly (data not shown). Moreover, the appearance of the labeled PS1 and PS2 species were blocked when the photolysis was performed in the presence of excess Merck B (data not shown). An analysis of the signals by densitometric scanning revealed 2.2 ± 0.2-fold more photolabeled PS1 in PS1+/+PS2+/+ cell membranes than in PS1+/PS2/ cell membranes. Moreover, there is 2.4 ± 0.3-fold less photolabeled PS2 in PS1+/+PS2+/+ cell membranes than in PS1/PS2+/+ cell membranes. These data indicate that {gamma}-secretase activity better correlates with the amount of photolabeled PS1 rather than total amount of PS1 in PS1+/+-PS2+/+ and PS1+/ PS2/ BD cell membranes.



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 4.
Photoaffinity labeling of PS1 and PS2 in PS1+/+PS2+/+, PS1+/ PS2/, and PS1/PS2+/+ cell membranes with an active site-directed photoactivatable {gamma}-secretase inhibitor (Merck A). Equivalent amounts of membrane protein from these cell lines were photolabeled, captured with immobilized strepavidin, and analyzed by immunoblotting as described elsewhere (12). The amount of the photolabeling reaction that was subjected to SDS-PAGE is indicated.

 

PS1- and PS2-mediated {gamma}-Secretase Activity Display Differential Inhibitor Susceptibility—The potent {gamma}-secretase inhibitor, Merck B (21), blocked cleavage of C100/FLAG by PS1+/+ PS2+/+ BD cell membranes (Fig. 5). The IC50 value, 0.26 nM, was indistinguishable from the value that was observed with the detergent extract prepared from HeLa cell membranes (20). The PS1-mediated {gamma}-secretase activity catalyzed by PS1+/PS2/ BD cell membranes and the PS2-mediated {gamma}-secretase activity catalyzed by PS1/PS2+/+ BD cell membranes were both inhibited by Merck B (IC50 values = 0.15 and 0.81 nM, respectively). Hence, the PS1 {gamma}-secretase complex appears to be 5.4-fold more susceptible to inhibition by Merck B than is the PS2 {gamma}-secretase complex. This apparent ability of Merck B to discriminate between PS1 and PS2 was also observed with membranes prepared from mouse embryonic fibroblasts derived from PS1+/+PS2+/+ and PS1+/+PS2/ mice (data not shown). On the other hand, another {gamma}-secretase inhibitor, Merck C, displayed more similar inhibitory potency toward {gamma}-secretase activities catalyzed by PS1+/PS2/ and PS1/PS2+/+ BD cell membranes (Fig. 5). The apparent IC50 values of Merck C for the PS1- and PS2-mediated {gamma}-secretase activities were 9.8 and 18.9 nM, respectively.



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 5.
Inhibition of PS1- and PS2-mediated {gamma}-secretase activities by Merck B and Merck C. Membranes (2.5 µg) prepared from PS1+/+PS2+/+ (WT), PS1+/PS2/ (PS1), and PS1/PS2+/+ (PS2) BD cells were treated with increasing concentrations of Merck B or Merck C. {gamma}-Secretase activity was monitored by the production of the A{beta}40-related product from the C100/FLAG substrate. Activities are expressed as the percentage relative to A{beta}40 that was produced in absence of either compound. Data depict the mean ± S.E. (n = 3).

 

It is noteworthy that the Ki values of the inhibitors determined with the PS1+/+PS2+/+ cell membranes are more similar to the values determined with PS1+/PS2/ BD membranes than to the values determined with PS1/PS2+/+ cell membranes (Fig. 5). These results provide additional evidence that the PS1-containing complex is the major catalyst of {gamma}-secretase activity in PS1+/+PS2+/+ BD cells and their corresponding cellular membranes.


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The ability of a photoactivatable active site-directed {gamma}-secretase inhibitor (12) to label both PS1 and PS2 suggests that the presenilins have overlapping substrate preferences. This conclusion is concordant with recent studies implicating both PS1 and PS2 in APP and Notch processing (9, 10, 16, 19). Nevertheless, the structural divergence of the presenilins (67% identity) suggests that PS1 and PS2 may exhibit differences with respect to their ligand specificities. The disparate phenotypes exhibited by the PS1- and PS2-deficient mice may reflect this difference (14, 15). Of course, the nonparallel effects of disrupting the PS1 and PS2 genes in mice and cells (derived from these mice) are not necessarily indicative of dissimilar substrate or ligand specificity but could possibly reflect disparate subcellular localization of the presenilins. To distinguish between these possibilities, PS1- and PS2-mediated activities were individually assessed using BD cells (and membranes) from PS1+/ PS2/ and PS1/PS2+/+ mice, respectively.

We employed a novel strategy based on standardization of immunoblot signals to quantify the relative levels of PS1 and PS2 proteins in the different BD cell lines. The ratio of PS1 and PS2 proteins in PS1+/+PS2+/+ BD cells is ~1:0.7. The amount of PS1 protein in PS1+/PS2/ BD cells is only 6% of that seen in PS1+/+PS2+/+ cells, which is far less than the expected 50% value. The less amount of PS1 protein in PS1+/PS2/ BD cells could reflect more rapid turnover or decreased synthesis of the PS1-associated macromolecular complexes. On the other hand, the amount of PS2 in PS1/PS2+/+ cells is 2.6-fold greater that the level of the PS2 in PS1+/+PS2+/+ cells. The higher level of PS2 in PS1-deficient cells might reflect enhanced stability because of increased availability of critical cellular factors that are typically sequestered by PS1 in wild-type cells.

Our investigation shows that the PS1 {gamma}-secretase complex displays markedly greater activity than the PS2 {gamma}-secretase complex both in the in vitro assay using the C100/FLAG substrate and the cellular assay using the C100 substrate. We infer that PS1 is more active than PS2 toward the APP C100 fragments that are generated by {beta}-secretase-mediated processing of APP. These results provide biochemical evidence that PS1 plays a predominant role in the cellular processing of APP, a belief largely based on studies with neuronal cells derived from PS1 or PS2-deficient mouse embryos (7, 16). The fact that PS1- and PS2-mediated activities display different sensitivity to {gamma}-secretase inhibitors further indicates that PS1 and PS2 have unique active sites that engender disparate substrate preferences.

Both PS1+/PS2/ and PS1/PS2+/+ BD cells and the corresponding cell membranes displayed {gamma}-secretase activities that generated both A{beta}40 and A{beta}42. The ratio of A{beta}42 over total A{beta} appeared to be relatively low (<20%) and only slightly different for the PS1- and PS2-mediated {gamma}-secretase activities. PS1 actually generated slightly more A{beta}42-related product than PS2 in the in vitro assay system, whereas the situation was reversed in the cellular system. The reason for the ratio difference of A{beta}40 and A{beta}42 when assayed with the in vitro and cellular assays is unclear but it may reflect the contribution of intracellular trafficking or putative/accessory factors in the cell. Nevertheless, our studies thus show that A{beta}42 formation is not necessarily mediated by only one of the two presenilins. Both PS1 and PS2 are seemingly capable of catalyzing this proteolytic cleavage event.

The different PS1 levels in the PS1+/+PS2+/+ and PS1+/ PS2/ cells (and membranes) were not matched by a corresponding disparity in their {gamma}-secretase activities. The apparent discrepancy between PS1 levels and {gamma}-secretase activity is not because of a kinetic effect in our assay system in which the rate of product formation is maximal in the presence of a relatively low amount of PS1. We "titrated" active {gamma}-secretase using a photoreactive transition state analog inhibitor to shed light on this enigma. Because the concentration of the compound used in the experiment is much higher than its Ki, the extent of labeling should reveal the relative amount of the active enzyme in the membranes. The amount of photolabeled PS1 in PS1+/+ PS2+/+ cell membranes is only 2-fold greater than that in PS1+/PS2/ cell membranes, even though PS1 in wild type cell membranes is 16-fold more abundant than that in PS1+/ PS2/ cell membranes. Interestingly, the amount of the photolabeled species is more consistent with the relative {gamma}-secretase activity displayed by the respective cell membranes. Assuming that PS1 in PS1+/PS2/ cell membranes is fully engaged in the active {gamma}-secretase complex, only ~14% total PS1 in the PS1+/+PS2+/+ BD cells is engaged in the active {gamma}-secretase complex. The components of the PS-1 {gamma}-secretase complex that are critical for activity remain to be elucidated. Our results indicate that the PS1 heterodimer may be essential but not sufficient for {gamma}-secretase activity. This observation is consistent with previous cellular studies in which overexpression of full-length PS1 or coexpression of its NTF and CTF fragments did not increase {gamma}-secretase activity (22). Nicastrin (23), APH-1 (24, 25), and Pen-2 (25) are proteins that are purportedly engaged in the complex and thus may be obligatory for {gamma}-secretase activity. These putative accessory proteins may be lacking in the PS-associated species that fails to display {gamma}-secretase activity. The "non-{gamma}-secretase" PS1 complex may mediate other functions such as trafficking and regulation of {beta}-catenin signaling. {gamma}-Secretase inhibitors will serve as powerful tools to selectively neutralize the protease-associated functions of the presenilins while leaving the other putative functions intact.

Our observation that only a small portion of the PS1 in PS1+/+PS2+/+ membranes is involved in an active {gamma}-secretase complex may help to resolve some perplexing issues surrounding {gamma}-secretase biology. The assignment of {gamma}-secretase activity to the presenilins has been challenged because the presenilins and the {gamma}-secretase substrates do not appear to be colocalized to the same cellular site (26). Presenilins predominantly reside in the early compartments of the secretory apparatus, whereas the {gamma}-secretase mediated Notch processing occurs at or near the plasma membrane (27). Our discovery that only a small portion of PS1 is engaged in the active {gamma}-secretase complex in concert with evidence for a small amount of presenilins on the cell surface (28) may have solved this "spatial paradox."

Presenilins are also involved in the final step of Notch cleavage that generates the Notch intracellular domain, which is involved in transcriptional coactivation of CSL (CBF-1, Su(H), Lag-1) transcription factors (29). Recent studies (30, 31) indicate that complete inhibition of {gamma}-secretase activity by {gamma}-secretase-specific inhibitors blocks the Notch activity and arrests T cell development. It will be important to carry out similar studies aimed at characterizing PS1 and PS2-mediated {gamma}-secretase activities toward Notch substrates. Understanding the specificity of PS1 and PS2 toward different substrates and inhibitors will help to develop selective {gamma}-secretase inhibitors for AD therapy. Moreover, it is important to determine the applicability of our findings to presenilins expressed by neurons and neural progenitor cells (32). Presenilin-mediated {gamma}-secretase activity is believed to participate in at least two critical processes in the brain, neuronal differentiation during neurogenesis (33) and A{beta} production. Abnormal {gamma}-secretase activity in neurons and neural progenitor cells may contribute to AD and has implications in other neurodegenerative diseases.

In conclusion, our studies highlight fascinating twists in the link between the presenilins and {gamma}-secretase activity. Some findings were anticipated such as the dissimilar substrate/ligand preferences of the PS1 {gamma}-secretase complex and the PS2 {gamma}-secretase complex. However, other elements in the link between PS1 and {gamma}-secretase activity were unexpected such as the apparent heterogeneity with respect to the activity state of PS1 in wild-type BD cells. The striking diversity that is exhibited by the presenilins portends their involvement in a panoply of disparate biological processes that still largely remain to be elucidated.


    FOOTNOTES
 
* The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Back

|| Present address: Lexicon Genetics, Inc., 8800 Technology Forest Place, The Woodlands, TX 77381. Back

** Present address: Bayer Corporation, B24-2, 400 Morgan Lane, West Haven, CT 06516. Back

{ddagger}{ddagger} Present address: RRL-617A, Box 459, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave., New York, NY 10021. Back

§ To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: mingtain_lai{at}merck.com (to M.-T. L.) or liy2{at}mskcc.org (to Y.-M. L.).

1 The abbreviations used are: PS1, presenilin-1; PS2, presenilin-2; BD, blastocyst-derived; AD, Alzheimer's disease; APP, amyloid precursor protein; A{beta}, {beta}-amyloid; TNT, transcription/translation; PVDF, polyvinylidene difluoride; CHAPSO, 3-[(3-cholamidopropyl)dimethylammonio]-2-hydroxy-1-propanesulfonic acid; NTF, N-terminal fragment; CTF, C-terminal fragment. Back


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Drs. C. Elle and K. Beyreuther for kindly providing us with the anti-PS1-CTF antibody and Dr. S. Gandy for the anti-PS1-NTF antibodies.



    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Sherrington, R., Rogaev, E. I., Liang, Y., Rogaeva, E. A., Levesque, G., Ikeda, M., Chi, H., Lin, C., Li, G., Holman, K., et al. (1995) Nature 375, 754–760[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Levy Lahad, E., Wasco, W., Poorkaj, P., Romano, D. M., Oshima, J., Pettingell, W. H., Yu, C. E., Jondro, P. D., Schmidt, S. D., Wang, K., et al. (1995) Science 269, 973–977[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. De Strooper, B., and Annaert, W. (2001) Nat. Cell Biol. 3, E221–E225[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Ni, C. Y., Murphy, M. P., Golde, T. E., and Carpenter, G. (2001) Science 294, 2179–2181[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Levitan, D., Doyle, T. G., Brousseau, D., Lee, M. K., Thinakaran, G., Slunt, H. H., Sisodia, S. S., and Greenwald, I. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 14940–14944[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Li, Y.-M. (2001) Mol. Intervent. 1, 198–207[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. De Strooper, B., Saftig, P., Craessaerts, K., Vanderstichele, H., Guhde, G., Annaert, W., Von Figura, K., and Van Leuven, F. (1998) Nature 391, 387–390[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Naruse, S., Thinakaran, G., Luo, J. J., Kusiak, J. W., Tomita, T., Iwatsubo, T., Qian, X., Ginty, D. D., Price, D. L., Borchelt, D. R., Wong, P. C., and Sisodia, S. S. (1998) Neuron 21, 1213–1221[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Herreman, A., Serneels, L., Annaert, W., Collen, D., Schoonjans, L., and De Strooper, B. (2000) Nat Cell Biol. 2, 461–462[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Zhang, Z., Nadeau, P., Song, W., Donoviel, D., Yuan, M., Bernstein, A., and Yankner, B. A. (2000) Nat Cell Biol. 2, 463–465[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Wolfe, M. S., Xia, W., Ostaszewski, B. L., Diehl, T. S., Kimberly, W. T., and Selkoe, D. J. (1999) Nature 398, 513–517[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Li, Y. M., Xu, M., Lai, M. T., Huang, Q., Castro, J. L., DiMuzio Mower, J., Harrison, T., Lellis, C., Nadin, A., Neduvelil, J. G., Register, R. B., Sardana, M. K., Shearman, M. S., Smith, A. L., Shi, X. P., Yin, K. C., Shafer, J. A., and Gardell, S. J. (2000) Nature 405, 689–694[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Esler, W. P., Kimberly, W. T., Ostaszewski, B. L., Diehl, T. S., Moore, C. L., Tsai, J. Y., Rahmati, T., Xia, W., Selkoe, D. J., and Wolfe, M. S. (2000) Nat. Cell Biol. 2, 428–434[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Shen, J., Bronson, R. T., Chen, D. F., Xia, W., Selkoe, D. J., and Tonegawa, S. (1997) Cell 89, 629–639[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  15. Wong, P. C., Zheng, H., Chen, H., Becher, M. W., Sirinathsinghji, D. J., Trumbauer, M. E., Chen, H. Y., Price, D. L., Van der Ploeg, L. H., and Sisodia, S. S. (1997) Nature 387, 288–292[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Herreman, A., Hartmann, D., Annaert, W., Saftig, P., Craessaerts, K., Serneels, L., Umans, L., Schrijvers, V., Checler, F., Vanderstichele, H., Baekelandt, V., Dressel, R., Cupers, P., Huylebroeck, D., Zwijsen, A., Van Leuven, F., and De Strooper, B. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 11872–11877[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Lee, M. K., Slunt, H. H., Martin, L. J., Thinakaran, G., Kim, G., Gandy, S. E., Seeger, M., Koo, E., Price, D. L., and Sisodia, S. S. (1996) J. Neurosci. 16, 7513–7525[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Yu, G., Chen, F., Levesque, G., Nishimura, M., Zhang, D. M., Levesque, L., Rogaeva, E., Xu, D., Liang, Y., Duthie, M., St. George Hyslop, P. H., and Fraser, P. E. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 16470–16475[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Donoviel, D. B., Hadjantonakis, A. K., Ikeda, M., Zheng, H., Hyslop, P. S., and Bernstein, A. (1999) Genes Dev. 13, 2801–2810[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Li, Y. M., Lai, M. T., Xu, M., Huang, Q., DiMuzio Mower, J., Sardana, M. K., Shi, X. P., Yin, K. C., Shafer, J. A., and Gardell, S. J. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 6138–6143[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Shearman, M. S., Beher, D., Clarke, E. E., Lewis, H. D., Harrison, T., Hunt, P., Nadin, A., Smith, A. L., Stevenson, G., and Castro, J. L. (2000) Biochemistry 39, 8698–8704[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Levitan, D., Lee, J., Song, L., Manning, R., Wong, G., Parker, E., and Zhang, L. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 12186–12190[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Yu, G., Nishimura, M., Arawaka, S., Levitan, D., Zhang, L., Tandon, A., Song, Y. Q., Rogaeva, E., Chen, F., Kawarai, T., Supala, A., Levesque, L., Yu, H., Yang, D. S., Holmes, E., Milman, P., Liang, Y., Zhang, D. M., Xu, D. H., Sato, C., Rogaev, E., Smith, M., Janus, C., Zhang, Y., Aebersold, R., Farrer, L. S., Sorbi, S., Bruni, A., Fraser, P., and St. George Hyslop, P. (2000) Nature 407, 48–54[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Goutte, C., Tsunozaki, M., Hale, V. A., and Priess, J. R. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99, 775–779[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Francis, R., McGrath, G., Zhang, J., Ruddy, D. A., Sym, M., Apfeld, J., Nicoll, M., Maxwell, M., Hai, B., Ellis, M. C., Parks, A. L., Xu, W., Li, J., Gurney, M., Myers, R. L., Himes, C. S., Hiebsch, R., Ruble, C., Nye, J. S., and Curtis, D. (2002) Dev. Cell 3, 85–97[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Cupers, P., Bentahir, M., Craessaerts, K., Orlans, I., Vanderstichele, H., Saftig, P., De Strooper, B., and Annaert, W. (2001) J. Cell Biol. 154, 731–740[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Mumm, J. S., Schroeter, E. H., Saxena, M. T., Griesemer, A., Tian, X. L., Pan, D. J., Ray, W. J., and Kopan, R. (2000) Mol. Cell 5, 197–206[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Ray, W. J., Yao, M., Mumm, J., Schroeter, E. H., Saftig, P., Wolfe, M., Selkoe, D. J., Kopan, R., and Goate, A. M. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 36801–36807[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Weinmaster, G. (2000) Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 10, 363–369[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Doerfler, P., Shearman, M. S., and Perlmutter, R. M. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 9312–9317[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Hadland, B. K., Manley, N. R., Su, D., Longmore, G. D., Moore, C. L., Wolfe, M. S., Schroeter, E. H., and Kopan, R. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 7487–7491[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Wen, P. H., Friedrich, V. L., Jr., Shioi, J., Robakis, N. K., and Elder, G. A. (2002) Neurosci. Lett. 318, 53–56[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Handler, M., Yang, X., and Shen, J. (2000) Development 127, 2593–2606[Abstract/Free Full Text]