Smads 2 and 3 Are Differentially Activated by Transforming Growth Factor-beta (TGF-beta ) in Quiescent and Activated Hepatic Stellate Cells

CONSTITUTIVE NUCLEAR LOCALIZATION OF Smads IN ACTIVATED CELLS IS TGF-beta -INDEPENDENT*

Chenghai LiuDagger §, Marianna D. A. GaçaDagger §, E. Scott SwensonDagger , Vincent F. VellucciDagger , Michael ReissDagger ||, and Rebecca G. WellsDagger **DaggerDagger

From the Departments of Dagger  Internal Medicine and ** Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06520

Received for publication, July 31, 2002, and in revised form, January 21, 2003

    ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Hepatic stellate cells are the primary cell type responsible for matrix deposition in liver fibrosis, undergoing a process of transdifferentiation into fibrogenic myofibroblasts. These cells, which undergo a similar transdifferentiation process when cultured in vitro, are a major target of the profibrogenic agent transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta ). We have studied activation of the TGF-beta downstream signaling molecules Smads 2, 3, and 4 in hepatic stellate cells (HSC) cultured in vitro for 1, 4, and 7 days, with quiescent, intermediate, and fully transdifferentiated phenotypes, respectively. Total levels of Smad4, common to multiple TGF-beta superfamily signaling pathways, do not change as HSC transdifferentiate, and the protein is found in both nucleus and cytoplasm, independent of treatment with TGF-beta or the nuclear export inhibitor leptomycin B. TGF-beta mediates activation of Smad2 primarily in early cultured cells and that of Smad3 primarily in transdifferentiated cells. The linker protein SARA, which is required for Smad2 signaling, disappears with transdifferentiation. Additionally, day 7 cells demonstrate constitutive phosphorylation and nuclear localization of Smad 2, which is not affected by pretreatment with TGF-beta -neutralizing antibodies, a type I TGF-beta receptor kinase inhibitor, or activin-neutralizing antibodies. These results demonstrate essential differences between TGF-beta -mediated signaling pathways in quiescent and in vitro transdifferentiated hepatic stellate cells.

    INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

The transforming growth factors beta  (TGF-beta s)1 are multifunctional peptide growth factors with variable cellular effects, including growth inhibition and matrix induction. They are potent profibrogenic agents, with roles in multiple fibrotic diseases (1). In particular, TGF-beta is a key mediator of hepatic fibrosis, as demonstrated by an increase in TGF-beta production at sites of matrix deposition, the development of fibrosis in laboratory animals engineered to overproduce TGF-beta , and the effectiveness of anti-TGF-beta therapies in mitigating experimentally-induced fibrosis (2-9).

Hepatic stellate cells (HSC) are the primary target of fibrogenic stimuli in the diseased liver. In the setting of chronic liver disease, HSC transdifferentiate, adopting a myofibroblast-like phenotype characterized in part by proliferation and the deposition of abnormal matrix. This phenotypic change, termed "activation," has been modeled in vitro by culturing HSCs on uncoated plastic. Freshly isolated HSC appear undifferentiated and are traditionally termed "quiescent," whereas cells grown on uncoated plastic for 5 to 7 days become activated. In response to TGF-beta , culture-activated cells produce extracellular matrix that is similar in composition to that seen in the fibrotic liver (7, 10-13).

TGF-beta signals through the sequential activation of two cell surface serine/threonine kinase receptors, the type II and type I (Tbeta RI). The activated Tbeta RI phosphorylates Smad2 or Smad3, members of the Smad family of cytoplasmic and nuclear signaling molecules, which are specific for the signaling pathways of TGF-beta and the related growth factor activin. Phosphorylated Smads 2 and 3 form heteromeric complexes with Smad4, a Smad common to the signaling pathways of multiple TGF-beta superfamily members, and move into the nucleus where they join other transcription factors to form transcriptionally active complexes (14). Recent work has also demonstrated a role for the protein Smad anchor for receptor activation (SARA), an FYVE domain linker protein that recruits Smad2 to the TGF-beta receptor complex and is required for maximal Smad2-mediated TGF-beta signaling (15).

Smad2 and Smad3 are clearly functionally distinct, although the details of their differing functions are not well understood. They have different expression patterns, produce different phenotypes in null mice, and demonstrate different effects on at least one promoter (16-20). Smad3 binds DNA directly, whereas Smad2 does not (21-24). Expression of a dominant negative Smad3 but not Smad2 prevents TGF-beta -mediated inhibition of adipocyte differentiation (25). Furthermore, studies with passaged fibroblasts derived from Smad2 or Smad3 null mouse embryos suggest that, although both Smads contribute to TGF-beta -mediated growth inhibition and plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI)-1 up-regulation, Smad3 is primarily responsible for the autocrine production of TGF-beta and Smad2 for matrix metalloproteinase-2 up-regulation (26).

In this report we have examined TGF-beta signaling in primary HSC as they undergo in vitro activation. We demonstrate that there is a dissociation between the cell cycle and matrix effects of TGF-beta in HSC, with growth inhibition occurring only in phenotypically quiescent cells while TGF-beta -mediated matrix deposition is observed in HSC at all stages. Smad4 in these cells is constitutively expressed in both nucleus and cytoplasm independent of TGF-beta treatment. Smads 2 and 3, however, are phosphorylated and translocate into the nucleus in response to TGF-beta , although the pattern varies with the state of activation: Smad2 phosphorylation and nuclear translocation occurs primarily in quiescent and intermediate cells, whereas Smad3 activation occurs primarily in activated cells. SARA is expressed in quiescent HSC but is lost with in vitro activation in parallel with the loss of TGF-beta -mediated Smad2 phosphorylation. In day 7 HSC, in addition to TGF-beta -responsive Smad3 activation, we also observed constitutive phosphorylation and nuclear localization of Smad2. Treatment with a Tbeta RI kinase inhibitor or with TGF-beta or activin-neutralizing antibodies does not diminish this constitutive activation. These results demonstrate essential differences between TGF-beta -mediated Smad signaling pathways in quiescent and in vitro-transdifferentiated HSC, and suggest that both TGF-beta -dependent and -independent Smad activation occurs in activated HSC.

    EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Materials-- Media (minimum essential medium and medium 199 (M199)) were obtained from Invitrogen (Grand Island, NY) and Cellgro (Herndon, VA), FBS was from Gemini Biosciences (Woodland, CA), and antibiotics were from Invitrogen. TGF-beta 1 was from R&D Systems (Minneapolis, MN).

HSC Isolation-- Primary rat hepatic stellate cells were isolated from livers of Sprague-Dawley rats weighing 500-700 g by a modification of a method described previously (27). Rats were anesthetized with sodium pentobarbital. In situ liver perfusion and digestion was performed with Pronase E (2.4 mg/ml, Roche Molecular Biochemicals, Chicago, IL) and collagenase B (0.3-0.45 mg/ml, Roche Molecular Biochemicals), and the resulting liver cell suspension was purified by density gradient centrifugation using 8.2% Nycodenz. HSC were plated on uncoated plastic at a density of 5 × 106 per 10-cm diameter plate and maintained in M199/10% FBS supplemented with glutamine and antibiotics (penicillin, 100 units/ml; streptomycin, 100 units/ml; gentamicin, 0.1 mg/ml; and Fungizone (Invitrogen), 2.5 µg/ml). Cell viability was greater than 90% as assessed by trypan blue exclusion. Purity was 90-95% as assessed by desmin immunostaining and the typical light microscopic appearance of the lipid droplets. Cells were considered to be quiescent at day 1, 24 h after plating. Cells at day 7 were considered activated, with greater than 95% staining positive for alpha -smooth muscle actin. For all experiments in which cells at different stages were compared, the cells were from the same isolation. All experiments were repeated with cells from different animals, as noted in the figure legends.

Proliferation Assays-- After 1, 4, or 7 days in culture, primary HSC were washed twice with serum-free M199, then incubated in M199/0.3% FBS with or without TGF-beta 1 for 24 h. 2 µCi/ml [3H]thymidine was added for the last 18 h of incubation. Labeled cells were washed twice with PBS and lysed in 1 M NaOH; lysates were counted in a liquid scintillation counter.

RNA Isolation and Northern Blotting-- A rat Smad2 cDNA probe was generated by reverse transcription (RT)-PCR with primers derived from GenBankTM accession number AB010147 (sense, CGATGCTCAAGCATGTCCTA; antisense, CGCTCTGGGTTTTGACTAGC). Results from Northern blots with this probe were confirmed with a second probe generated from primers encompassing a different region of the coding sequence (sense, TACCACTCTCTCCCCTGTCAAT; antisense, TCTCTCCAACCCTCTGGTTTAG). A cDNA encoding rat Smad3 (GenBankTM U66479) was a generous gift of Yun Chen (Indiana University) (28); a KpnI restriction fragment representing the entire coding region was purified with the QIAquick gel extraction kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA). The probe for alpha  1(I) collagen was generated by restriction digestion of the cDNA and included the entire coding region (29). The probe for rat decorin was generated by RT-PCR using primers from GenBankTM sequence Z12298 (sense, CTCTGGCATAATCCCTTACGAC; antisense, GGTATGCAAGTCCTTCAGGTTC). Rat beta -actin cDNA was from Clontech (Palo Alto, CA). cDNAs were labeled with [32P]dCTP with the Megaprime labeling kit (Amersham Biosciences, Piscataway, NJ) according to the manufacturer's instructions.

HSC at days 1, 4, and 7 were treated with 100 pM TGF-beta 1 for 24 h in 0.3% serum, or for shorter periods (0-90 min) in serum-free media. This concentration of TGF-beta 1 (~2.5 ng/ml) is predicted to be saturating. Total RNA was extracted with the RNeasy kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Aliquots of 15-20 µg of total RNA were electrophoretically separated on 1% denaturing agarose gels, transferred to Hybond-N+ nylon membranes (Amersham Biosciences, Piscataway, NJ), prehybridized for 30 min at 42 °C in NorthernMax hybridization buffer (Ambion, Inc., Austin, TX), and hybridized with [32P]dCTP-labeled probes at 42 °C overnight. After hybridization, membranes were washed with 0.2× SSC/0.2% SDS at 42 °C for 15 min, followed by two washes at 55 °C. Blots were exposed to x-ray film at -70 °C for 24-72 h.

Western Blotting-- For immunoblotting of PAI-1, HSC at days 1, 4, or 7 after isolation were treated with 100 pM TGF-beta 1 for 24 h in the presence of 0.3% serum. Cells were lysed in hypotonic buffer (20 mM NaCl, 10 mM KCl, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 10 mM Hepes, pH 7.4, 1% Triton X-100, 1.5 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride), and lysates were equalized for protein content and separated by SDS-PAGE, transferred to nitrocellulose, and immunoblotted with antibody against PAI-1 (5 µg/ml, American Diagnostica, Inc., Greenwich, CT).

For immunoblotting of Smad proteins, HSC at days 1, 4, or 7 after isolation were rinsed, serum-starved for 15 min, then treated with or without 100 pM TGF-beta 1 for 15 min. For 24-h treatments, cells were incubated with or without 100 pM TGF-beta 1 for 24 h in the presence of 0.3% serum. Cells were chilled, washed with PBS, and pelleted. Pellets were resuspended in low salt buffer (20 mM HEPES, pH 7.9, 10 mM KCl, 0.1 mM NaVO4, 1 mM EGTA, 1 mM EDTA, 0.2% Nonidet P-40, 10% glycerol, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 1 µg/ml Complete (Roche Molecular Biochemicals, Chicago, IL)), incubated on ice for 10 min, and centrifuged (8000 × g, 2 min, 4 °C). Supernatants were collected and considered to be the cytoplasmic fraction. Pellets were resuspended in high salt buffer (low salt buffer with 420 mM NaCl, 20% glycerol, and no Nonidet P-40), incubated on ice for 30 min, and centrifuged as before. Supernatants were collected as the nuclear fraction. Protein concentrations were equalized within the two groups (cytoplasmic and nuclear), and equal aliquots within each group were separated by reducing SDS-PAGE, transferred to nitrocellulose, blocked with 5% nonfat milk in TBS with 0.1% Tween 20, and immunoblotted in the same buffer with the appropriate antibodies at the following concentrations: HSP-70 (1 µg/ml, Stressgen Biotechnologies Corp., Victoria, BC), proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA, 1:300, Sigma, St. Louis, MO), beta -tubulin (0.4 µg/ml, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc., Santa Cruz, CA), Smad2 (1.25 µg/ml, Transduction Laboratories, Lexington, KY), Smad3 (2.5 µg/ml, Zymed Laboratories Inc., San Francisco, CA), Smad4 (1.0 µg/ml, clone B-8, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc.), and SARA (1.0 µg/ml, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc.). For immunoblotting of total protein (Fig. 4, A and D), cells were lysed with total lysis buffer (1% Triton X-100, 0.5% deoxycholic acid, 10 mM EDTA, in PBS) with protease inhibitors, and treated as for the lysates described above. The specificity of the antibodies against Smads 2 and 3 and SARA were confirmed by immunoblotting control lysates from COS7 cells transfected with vector alone or a cDNA encoding the specific protein.

The activated (phosphorylated) form of Smad2 was detected using a polyclonal rabbit anti-phosphopeptide antibody as previously described (30). The phosphorylated form of Smad3 was detected with a polyclonal rabbit antibody raised against a synthetic peptide comprising the C-terminal 13 amino acids of Smad3, in which two phosphoserine residues were incorporated at the extreme C terminus (KMGSPSIRCSSPVSP), coupled to keyhole limpet hemocyanin as a carrier protein (31-33). The antiserum was affinity-purified by negative selection using a keyhole limpet hemocyanin-agarose column, followed by chromatography using an Affi-Gel-10 (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA) matrix to which unphosphorylated Smad2 and Smad3 peptides had been coupled (34). The final purification step consisted of a positive selection using the phosphorylated Smad3 peptide coupled to Affi-Gel-10 matrix (34). The antibody was eluted using 3 M sodium thiocyanate, immediately neutralized using 100 mM Tris, and dialyzed against PBS for 48 h. The specificity and sensitivity of the anti-phospho-Smad3 antibody were confirmed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay as previously described (30). Blots were washed and incubated with horseradish peroxidase-coupled secondary antibody, and signals were detected by ECL.

Matrix Deposition Assays-- Collagen secretion was measured by differential collagenase sensitivity. Cells were labeled with 5 µCi/ml [2,3,4,5-3H]proline for 24 h in the presence of 100 pM TGF-beta 1. Media were collected, equalized according to the DNA content of the associated cell layer, digested with collagenase, trichloroacetic acid-precipitated, and counted in a scintillation counter, as described previously (35).

To measure fibronectin production, HSC were treated with 100 pM TGF-beta 1 in 0.3% serum for 16 h. Cells were then incubated with minimal essential medium lacking cysteine and methionine for 2 h, followed by the addition of [35S]cysteine/methionine (Express, PerkinElmer Life Sciences, Boston, MA) at 100 µCi/ml for an additional 2 h. TGF-beta 1 was present throughout. The supernatant was collected and immunoprecipitated with antibody against rat fibronectin (1 µl/ml supernatant, Invitrogen). Immunoprecipitants were separated by SDS-PAGE, and gels were fluorographed with 2,5-diphenyloxazole, dried, and autoradiographed.

Glycosaminoglycan secretion was measured by treating HSC with 100 pM TGF-beta 1 in 0.3% serum for 24 h, the last 16 in the presence of 1 µCi/ml D-[6-3H]glucosamine HCl (Amersham Biosciences). Media were removed and spun three times in Amicon 10 microcentrifuge tubes to remove excess label, then counted.

Neutralizing Antibody and Inhibitor Treatments-- For treatments with neutralizing antibodies and inhibitors, cells were rinsed twice with M199, then incubated with pan-TGF-beta -neutralizing antibodies (R&D systems, 1 µg/ml, overnight), activin-neutralizing antibodies (R&D Systems, 0.06 or 0.6 µg/ml, overnight), leptomycin B (Sigma, 20 ng/ml, 0-60 min), or Tbeta RI kinase inhibitor NPC-34016 (a gift of David Liu, Scios, Inc., 0.1 µM, overnight). After incubation, cells were rinsed, lysed, and prepared for immunoblotting as above. The antibodies and inhibitors had been previously tested and demonstrated to be both effective and non-toxic to HSC at the concentrations used (data not shown).

    RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Culturing rat HSC on uncoated plastic is a well-established in vitro model of HSC activation. HSC at day 1 after isolation demonstrate a quiescent phenotype, with a round shape, abundant lipid droplets, and a lack of alpha -smooth muscle actin expression. Cells at day 7 are spread out, have few lipid droplets, and express alpha -smooth muscle actin, consistent with the activated phenotype. Cells at day 4 have an intermediate phenotype. We used this model system to study differences in TGF-beta signaling pathways at different stages of phenotypic differentiation. Data in the literature regarding the effects of TGF-beta on quiescent and activated cells are contradictory, and the definition of quiescence and activation varies; therefore, as a preface to studying TGF-beta signaling in HSC, we systematically defined their response to TGF-beta .

TGF-beta -mediated Inhibition of DNA Synthesis-- We first characterized the growth response to TGF-beta . As assayed by [3H]thymidine incorporation, quiescent HSC (day 1) demonstrated marked inhibition of DNA synthesis in response to TGF-beta (10-500 pM), with a decrease in incorporation of up to 83% and an IC50 of 10 pM (Fig. 1), similar to what has been reported for phenotypically quiescent cells by other groups (36). In contrast, cells at days 4 and 7 after isolation demonstrated no change in DNA synthesis even with 500 pM TGF-beta , although these cells displayed a 3.4-fold higher baseline rate of thymidine incorporation in day 7 than in day 1 cells (Fig. 1).


View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   TGF-beta inhibits DNA synthesis in primary HSC at day 1 after isolation but not at days 4 and 7. Primary HSC at days 1, 4, and 7 after isolation were treated with TGF-beta 1 for 24 h in 0.3% serum then assayed for incorporation of [3H]thymidine, as described under "Experimental Procedures." Values (mean ± S.D.; n = 4) are normalized to incorporation in the absence of TGF-beta . The data shown are from one of three experiments with similar results (*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01).

TGF-beta -mediated Matrix Deposition-- We also characterized TGF-beta -mediated changes in the expression of various matrix components. Collagen mRNA synthesis and secretion are modestly but significantly increased in response to TGF-beta at days 4 and 7 (Fig. 2, A and B). Similar findings were seen for deposited collagen (data not shown). PAI-1 protein expression was increased (1.4- to 2.3-fold) with TGF-beta treatment at all three time points (Fig. 2B). Similar findings were seen for fibronectin (Fig. 2D) and glycosaminoglycans, including decorin (Fig. 2, A (middle panel) and E). TGF-beta -mediated increases in expression were modest (generally less than 2-fold), and, although baseline synthesis of matrix components increased in activated cells, the degree of up-regulation in response to TGF-beta was similar in quiescent and activated cells. Although it is often written that TGF-beta is strongly profibrogenic in HSC, most studies of rat HSC in the literature report less than 3-fold induction of matrix components by TGF-beta (13, 36-40).


View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   TGF-beta treatment of quiescent and activated cells up-regulates production of matrix proteins. Primary HSC at days 1, 4, and 7 after isolation were treated with 100 pM TGF-beta 1 as described. A, primary HSC at days 1, 4, and 7 were treated with 100 pM TGF-beta 1 for 0, 15, 30, or 90 min (left panel) or 0 (-) or 24 h (+; right panel) then analyzed by Northern blotting for collagen alpha 1(I) (top panel) and decorin (middle panel). To analyze loading, the same blot was stripped and re-analyzed with a probe for beta -actin (lower panels). B, collagen secretion was measured by differential collagenase sensitivity of [3H]proline-labeled secreted proteins and was increased in response to TGF-beta at days 4 and 7 (*, p < 0.05 for both days; six samples for each condition). C, HSC treated (+) or not (-) with TGF-beta were lysed, and lysates were immunoblotted with an antibody raised against PAI-1 (upper panel). As a control, aliquots of the same lysate were immunoblotted with an antibody against beta -tubulin. D, HSC were treated with TGF-beta for 16 h and metabolically labeled, as described under "Experimental Procedures." Media were collected and immunoprecipitated with an antibody against fibronectin. For comparison, experiments with fibronectin and PAI-1 performed in parallel with Mv1Lu cells, widely used for TGF-beta studies, demonstrate a 3- to 4-fold enhancement of synthesis with TGF-beta treatment (data not shown). E, HSC were treated with TGF-beta 1 for 24 h and labeled with [3H]glucosamine to determine secreted glycosaminoglycans, as described. Data are shown as percent increase for plus TGF-beta compared with minus TGF-beta . **, p < 0.05; *, p < 0.06 for -/+ TGF-beta comparison. Six replicates were counted for each condition. Results were similar for matrix deposition of glycosaminoglycans (data not shown). Results for each panel are representative of three experiments.

Smad 4 Activation-- To study the activation of Smad4 in HSC, cytoplasmic and nuclear lysates from cells at different stages of activation were immunoblotted with an antibody against the entire Smad4 coding sequence. There was no significant change in overall levels of Smad4 in cells 1, 4, or 7 days after isolation (Fig. 3A). Treatment with TGF-beta for 15 min resulted in minimal increases in nuclear Smad4 at days 1 and 4, although Smad4 was present in the nucleus even in the absence of TGF-beta . Immunodetection of blots with cytoplasmic (HSP-70) and nuclear (PCNA) marker proteins confirmed the purity of the different fractions.


View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Smad4 is constitutively present in the nucleus and cytoplasm, independent of TGF-beta . A, primary HSC at days 1, 4, and 7 were treated plus or minus 100 pM TGF-beta 1 for 15 min and then lysed. Lysates were separated into nuclear and cytoplasmic fractions and were immunoblotted with antibodies against Smad4 (top panel) and, to confirm the purity of the fractions, HSP70 (middle panel) and PCNA (lower panel). Sizes are indicated in kilodaltons. All three blots were prepared from the same lysate. The results are representative of five independent experiments. We consistently see two faster bands in the cytoplasm at day 4, with a corresponding reduction in the intensity of the major signal. The significance of proteolysis of Smad4, especially at day 4, is not known, although it has been observed by others (68). B, primary HSC at day 7 after isolation were placed in serum-free media, then treated with leptomycin B (20 ng/ml) for 0, 15, 30, or 60 min, or with TGF-beta 1 (100 pM; beta ) or TGF-beta and leptomycin B (L/beta ) for 15 min, then lysed and immunoblotted with antibodies against Smad4. There was no significant nuclear accumulation of Smad4 with leptomycin B treatment. Serially stripping the membrane and re-immunoblotting with antibodies against Smad2 and Smad3 gives similar negative findings (data not shown). This blot is representative of results obtained in three separate experiments.

A recent study reported the existence of widely expressed Smad4 isoforms that constitutively shuttle between the nucleus and cytoplasm and are able to form complexes with Smad2 in the nucleus (41). To determine whether this accounts for the Smad4 we observed constitutively in the nucleus, we treated day 7 cells with leptomycin B, an inhibitor of CRM1-mediated nuclear export. There was no significant accumulation of Smad4 in the nucleus after leptomycin B treatment, indicating that the shuttling observed by Pierreux et al. (41) does not explain our observations.

Differences in Smad2 and Smad3 Activation-- Smad2 phosphorylation in response to TGF-beta changed dramatically as cells underwent in vitro activation (Fig. 4). This is shown for both total lysates and nuclear and cytoplasmic fractions. Treatment of cells at days 1 and 4 with TGF-beta for 15 min resulted in a dramatic increase in phosphorylation of Smad2 (Fig. 4, A and B) as well as a shift from cytoplasm to nucleus (Fig. 4B). In contrast, Smad3 was phosphorylated and translocated to the nucleus in response to TGF-beta primarily at days 4 and 7 (Fig. 4, A and B). Interestingly, there was a significant portion of constitutively phosphorylated and constitutively nuclear Smad2 and, to a lesser extent, Smad3, present at days 4 and 7. 


View larger version (42K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   TGF-beta treatment results in different patterns of phosphorylation and nuclear translocation of Smads 2 and 3. A, primary HSC at days 1, 4, and 7 were treated with TGF-beta for 15 min, then lysed and immunoblotted with antibodies specific for phospho-Smad2 (upper panel) and phospho-Smad3 (lower panel). The images shown are from the same blot, stripped and re-probed. B, the blot from Fig. 3A, of nuclear and cytoplasmic isolates of HSC at days 1, 4, and 7 treated with (+) or without (-) TGF-beta 1 for 15 min, was serially stripped and probed with antibodies against phospho-Smad2 (top panel), total Smad2 (second panel), and total Smad3 (bottom panel). A separate blot (third panel) was probed with antibodies against phospho-Smad3. C, primary HSC at days 1, 4, and 7 were treated with 100 pM TGF-beta 1 for 0, 15, 30, or 90 min (left panel) or 0 (-) or 24 h (+; right panel) then analyzed by Northern blotting for Smad2 and Smad3 mRNA expression, as indicated. When the signal was corrected for loading by beta -actin expression, there was no change in mRNA levels with either activation or short or long term TGF-beta treatment. The same pattern of three bands at days 4 and 7 for Smad2 was seen on different blots with a non-overlapping probe (data not shown). D, the blot from Fig. 3A was stripped and re-probed with an antibody against SARA (upper panel), demonstrating that SARA expression is lost as activated HSC in culture. Similar results were obtained from blots using total lysates from cells treated with plus or minus TGF-beta for 15 min (lower panel). These blots are representative of three independent experiments.

Consistent with the stable total protein levels of Smads 2 and 3 (Fig. 4B and data not shown), no change in the message levels of either Smad was seen with short (0-90 min) or long (24 h) term treatment of cells with TGF-beta (Fig. 4C), although an additional transcript for Smad2 was seen at days 4 and 7. This band was specific: an identical pattern was also seen on different blots probed with a different, non-overlapping probe (data not shown). Two or more bands specific for Smad2 by Northern blotting have been reported previously (25, 42, 43), although their significance is not known. A splice variant of Smad2 that, unlike the wild type, is able to bind DNA, has been reported (24) and may account for this additional band, although one recent report demonstrated neither multiple bands for Smad2 nor changes in the splice variant with HSC activation (45). In contrast to other reports (45), we consistently observed a single transcript for Smad3 in HSC.

The FYVE Protein SARA Decreases with Activation-- The linker protein SARA recruits Smad2 to the TGF-beta receptor complex and is necessary for maximal Smad2-mediated TGF-beta signaling (15). The relationship between SARA and Smad3 is less clear, and one report suggests that SARA is required for Smad2- but not Smad3-mediated TGF-beta signaling (46). We therefore examined HSC undergoing in vitro activation for changes in SARA expression, looking for correlations between SARA expression and Smad activation. By Western immunoblotting, we noted a dramatic decrease in SARA levels in HSC from day 1 to day 4 after isolation; SARA was not detectable in HSC cultured for 7 days (Fig. 4D).

Constitutively Phosphorylated and Nuclear Smads Do Not Result from Autocrine TGF-beta Signaling-- We observed a significant amount of constitutively phosphorylated Smads 2 and 3, particularly Smad2, present in the nucleus at days 4 and 7 (Fig. 4B). This does not represent contamination of the different fractions (see controls in Fig. 3A); additionally, two different TGF-beta -responsive cell lines (L6 myoblasts and LLC-PK1 proximal tubule epithelial cells) demonstrated phospho-Smad2 only in nuclear fractions.2 One possibility is that this represents a response to autocrine TGF-beta production, although increased production of active (as opposed to latent) TGF-beta has not been observed in culture-activated cells (12, 47-49), and the responsiveness of our cells to exogenous TGF-beta in other assays argues against saturation of the TGF-beta signaling machinery. To answer this question definitively, we treated HSC with both TGF-beta -neutralizing antibodies (Fig. 5, B and C) and with a specific Tbeta RI kinase inhibitor (Fig. 5, A and B). Neither treatment altered the baseline nuclear localization or constitutive phosphorylation of Smad2 or Smad3, indicating that it is not the result of autocrine TGF-beta production.


View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5.   Constitutive activation of Smads 2 and 3 at day 7 is not the result of autocrine TGF-beta or activin signaling. A, HSC at days 1, 4, and 7 were treated overnight with 0.1 µM NPC-34016 Tbeta RI inhibitor, then lysed and analyzed by immunoblotting with antibodies against phospho-Smad2, total Smad2, or total Smad3 (the same blot was stripped and reprobed sequentially). A separate blot was probed with antibody against phospho-Smad3. B, HSC at day 7 were treated with either the inhibitor (as in A) or with 1 µg/ml of a pan-TGF-beta -neutralizing antibody (T) and analyzed as in A. C, HSC were treated overnight with antibodies against TGF-beta (as in B (T)) or against activin (0.06 (A1) or 0.6 µg/ml (A10)) overnight, then lysed and immunoblotted as above with antibodies against Smad2 or (using the same lysates) Smad 3. All blots shown are representative of at least three independent experiments.

Autocrine Activin Signaling Does Not Cause Constitutive Smad Activation-- It has been reported that the TGF-beta superfamily member activin is produced in an autocrine fashion by activated HSC (50). Because activin downstream signaling pathways share Smad2 and Smad3 with TGF-beta signaling pathways, we treated day 7 HSC with neutralizing antibodies against activin A and immunoblotted the lysates to determine whether activin is responsible for the activation state or distribution of Smads 2 and 3 (Fig. 5C). We saw no change in the constitutive nuclear localization of Smads 2 or 3, indicating that it is not the result of autocrine activin signaling.

    DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Our data demonstrate in an in vitro model of HSC activation that: 1) there is a dissociation between the growth regulatory and matrix-inducing effects of TGF-beta as HSC become activated; 2) activation is associated with a shift in TGF-beta signaling pathways such that TGF-beta predominantly activates Smad2 in quiescent cells and Smad3 in activated cells; 3) Smad4 is present constitutively in the nucleus and cytoplasm of HSC, and its distribution does not change in response to TGF-beta ; 4) Smad 2 and, to a lesser extent, Smad3, are constitutively activated in activated HSC in vitro; and 5) this constitutive activation is not due to autocrine TGF-beta or activin signaling.

We clearly demonstrate in this physiological system that there is a dissociation between the cell cycle and matrix effects of TGF-beta . TGF-beta treatment resulted in growth inhibition in HSC only at day 1, but caused increased expression of matrix components in cells at all stages of in vitro transdifferentiation; although the background expression of matrix components was increased in culture-activated HSC, the -fold induction by TGF-beta did not change significantly. Our results are consistent with descriptions of the behavior of HSC in bile duct-ligated rats and smooth muscle cells in human atherosclerotic lesions (3, 51). Interestingly, although there are several reports of engineered or malignant cell lines that have lost TGF-beta -mediated growth inhibition while retaining matrix responses, there are no reports of the reverse scenario (52-55), and it has been suggested that there is a higher threshold of Smad activation required for growth inhibition than for matrix induction (3, 52, 56). Whether this is correct has yet to be determined.

In activated rat HSC in culture, TGF-beta treatment results in the net deposition of abnormal matrix by up-regulation of multiple matrix components, including proteoglycans, collagen, and fibronectin, and protease inhibitors (11, 13, 37, 40, 57, 58). The effect of TGF-beta on quiescent HSC in vitro has not been extensively studied. Our results demonstrating that TGF-beta up-regulates matrix production modestly (less than 3-fold) are consistent with the published results of other investigators (13, 36-40), although the various studies use HSC at different time points after isolation. These data and our finding that TGF-beta up-regulates matrix production to similar degrees in quiescent and in vitro activated cells (Fig. 2 and data not shown) are consistent with the hypotheses of other investigators that autocrine TGF-beta signaling by activated cells is an incomplete explanation for the action of TGF-beta in liver fibrosis (49, 59). Although HSC at day 1 after isolation have almost certainly started to transdifferentiate by virtue of being in culture, the data nonetheless show that TGF-beta has significant matrix effects well before full activation. The effects on quiescent cells are potentially important in early liver disease and may explain in part why TGF-beta is necessary and sufficient for in vivo stellate cell activation and liver fibrosis (2, 4, 5, 60-62).

This is the first description of differential Smad activation in HSC during the process of transdifferentiation. The mechanism for the switch from Smad2 to Smad3 is not obvious, because the total populations of Smads 2 and 3 do not change at the protein or RNA level. In the context of the finding of Goto et al. (46) that SARA is required for Smad2- but not Smad3-mediated TGF-beta signaling, the loss of SARA expression as HSC activate could explain the decrease in TGF-beta -mediated Smad2 phosphorylation in cells from day 1 to day 7 after isolation, although this does not explain why Smad3 is not phosphorylated in response to TGF-beta treatment in day 1 cells. We have noted significant changes in the population of all three TGF-beta receptors in HSC at days 1, 4, and 7 of in vitro culture.3 Although the relationship between receptor expression and Smad activation is not well understood, varying receptor expression is a potential cause of differential Smad activation.

Dooley et al. (49) have shown TGF-beta -responsive phosphorylation and nuclear localization of Smads 2 and 3 in day 2 HSC but not passaged cells. The same group demonstrated a peak in TGF-beta -mediated activation of a Smad3/4-specific luciferase reporter construct in day 4 HSC, although Smad activation was not examined directly in this second report (45). Other investigators, using a spontaneously immortalized line of activated rat HSC, report that Smad2 is activated in response to TGF-beta , whereas Smad3 is constitutively activated (63). Some of the differences between these results and ours may relate to the use of passaged or immortalized versus primary activated HSC.

The implications of the observed differential Smad activation for TGF-beta signaling specificity are not clear. Although we demonstrate a correlation between TGF-beta -mediated growth inhibition and the activation of Smad2, the requirement for individual Smads in TGF-beta -mediated responses in HSC is not known, and knockouts of the different Smads in HSC at different time points will be required to determine definitively the signaling pathways required for each response. Roberts et al. (64) hypothesize that Smad3 is a critical element in fibrogenesis in general, although it is notable that HSC from Smad3 null mice undergo normal activation on plastic and show only a minor decrease in collagen alpha 1(I) mRNA (65). Our data demonstrating that Smad3 activation occurs late in transdifferentiation in vitro are consistent with the findings from Smad3 null mice, although both results raise questions about the actual function of Smad3 in activated HSC.

The expression of the linker protein SARA in HSC has not previously been described. This protein, which binds phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate through its FYVE domain, is important for localization of the Smads and their recruitment to the TGF-beta receptor complex (15). Our data, showing loss of TGF-beta -mediated Smad2 activation coincident with the loss of SARA expression, are consistent with the finding that SARA is required for Smad2- but not Smad3-mediated TGF-beta signaling (46). In addition, the recent report that localization of SARA to early endosomes is required for Smad-mediated signaling has interesting implications for understanding TGF-beta signaling in HSC (66): basic mechanisms of TGF-beta signaling may be different in quiescent cells, which have SARA, and activated cells, which have lost it.

Our data demonstrate constitutive Smad 2 activation in day 7 HSC (Figs. 4 and 5). This could result from endogenous TGF-beta production, although our Smad3 data clearly demonstrate that the TGF-beta response is not saturated (Fig. 4). We have shown in two different ways, with a TGF-beta signaling inhibitor and with neutralizing antibodies, that autocrine TGF-beta is not the cause (Fig. 5). This is consistent with published data (12, 47-49) showing that, although there is a significant amount of latent TGF-beta produced by transdifferentiated HSC, there is little active ligand produced. Constitutive phosphorylation of Smad2 in HSC from acutely injured rat livers and in immortalized, highly passaged HSC has been reported by Tahashi et al. (67), although this group reports inhibition of the phosphorylation with TGF-beta -neutralizing antibodies. Of note, there is a significant amount of phospho-Smad2 in the cytoplasm of HSC, the function of which is not known, although cytoplasmic phospho-Smad2 has been observed in other cells (41). Feldmann et al. (68) have reported sustained phosphorylation of Smads 2 and 3 in both the cytoplasm and nucleus of splenocytes and lymphocytes and have found that this is correlated with resistance to TGF-beta -mediated growth inhibition, similar to our observations in HSC. The stability of the cytoplasmic phospho-Smad2 we observed and its mechanism of degradation are not known, because Smad2 is normally degraded by the proteasome after nuclear translocation, possibly in the nucleus itself (69). It has recently been demonstrated that Smads 2 and 3 are imported into the nucleus by different mechanisms (70, 71) and that the import of Smad2 is phosphorylation-independent and blocked by the Smad2-SARA interaction; TGF-beta -mediated phosphorylation releases Smad2 from SARA and unmasks the intrinsic nuclear import capabilities of Smad2. The loss of SARA in activated HSC may therefore be an important factor in the nuclear Smad2 we observed, although it does not explain the constitutive phosphorylation.

The TGF-beta superfamily member activin also signals through Smads 2 and 3, and it is secreted by in vitro activated HSC (50). We considered this as a potential cause of the constitutive Smad activation we observed. Treatment of cells with an anti-activin antibody, however, did not alter the level of Smad activation. Similarly, there was no change in [3H]thymidine incorporation or expression of alpha -smooth muscle actin or fibronectin by day 7 HSC treated with activin-neutralizing antibodies (data not shown).

The role of the antagonist Smad7 in moderating TGF-beta activity in quiescent versus activated HSC is not known, although its mRNA is rapidly up-regulated in response to TGF-beta treatment in early HSC but not passaged cells (45, 72). It has been suggested that differential up-regulation of Smad7 in acute versus chronic liver injury determines whether injury resolution or fibrosis occurs (67). We observed phosphorylation of either Smad2 or Smad3 in response to TGF-beta in quiescent and activated cells. This is consistent with there being no difference in Smad7 activity between cells at day 1 and day 7 after isolation or, alternatively, that Smad7 exerts a greater inhibitory effect on Smad3 than on Smad2, or that the TGF-beta response is less sustained in activated compared with quiescent cells.

TGF-beta -induced Smad4 nuclear translocation in our system was minimal, especially in activated HSC. A similar observation has been made in an immortalized line of activated HSC (63). This finding may indicate that TGF-beta signaling in HSC is Smad4-independent, as has been shown for some TGF-beta responses in other cell systems (44, 73). We also observed a significant fraction of Smad4 in the nucleus constitutively, consistent with the data of Inagaki et al. (63) using an immortalized line of HSC. It was recently reported that there are widely expressed and functional Smad4 splice variants that shuttle constitutively between nucleus and cytoplasm (41). We did not observe accumulation of Smad4 in leptomycin B-treated cells, however, making this an unlikely explanation. Smad2 and Smad4 can form active complexes in the nucleus as well as the cytoplasm, suggesting that Smad4 could play a role in TGF-beta signaling in HSC even in the absence of significant cytoplasmic to nuclear translocation (41).

In summary, we demonstrate that Smad signaling pathways can be differentially activated during cellular differentiation, specifically in primary HSC in culture. We are currently examining whether differential Smad activation is responsible for the differences in TGF-beta -mediated growth inhibition and matrix induction in quiescent and activated HSC. The results from these studies will be important to our understanding of TGF-beta signaling as well as to the design of rational anti-fibrotic therapies.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The rat Smad3 construct was a generous gift from Yun Chen (Indiana University), and the Tbeta RI kinase inhibitor NPC-34016 was a generous gift from David Liu (Scios, Inc.). We are grateful to Kathy Augustyn Harry, Tanya Arslanian, and the Yale Liver Center for assistance with HSC isolation; to Lixia Guo for technical assistance; and to Michael Centrella and Oliver Eickelberg for helpful discussions.

    FOOTNOTES

* This work was supported by grants from the Yale Liver Center (Grant DK34989 to R. G. W.), NIDDK, National Institutes of Health (NIH) (Grant DK58123 to R. G. W.), NCI, NIH (Grant CA41556 to M. R. and V. F. V.), and Chinese Scholarship Council (to C. L.).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.

§ Both authors contributed equally to this work.

Present address: Institute of Liver Diseases, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai 200032, People's Republic of China.

|| Present address: The Cancer Institute of New Jersey, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ 08903.

Dagger Dagger To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Medicine (Gastroenterology), School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 415 Curie Blvd., 670 CRB/6140, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6140. Tel.: 215-573-1860; Fax: 215-573-2024; E-mail: rgwells@ mail.med.upenn.edu.

Published, JBC Papers in Press, January 22, 2003, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M207728200

2 O. Eickelberg and R. G. Wells, unpublished observations.

3 M. D. A. Gaça and R. G. Wells, manuscript in preparation.

    ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used are: TGF-beta , transforming growth factor-beta ; HSC, hepatic stellate cell(s); Tbeta RI, type I TGF-beta receptor; RT, reverse transcription; PAI-1, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1; PCNA, proliferating cell nuclear antigen; SARA, Smad anchor for receptor activation; FBS, fetal bovine serum; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; M199, medium 199.

    REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

1. Wells, R. G. (2000) Am. J. Physiol. 279, G845-G850[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Sanderson, N., Factor, V., Nagy, P., Kopp, J., Kondaiah, P., Wakefield, L., Roberts, A. B., Sporn, M. B., and Thorgeirsson, S. S. (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92, 2572-2576[Abstract]
3. Roulot, D., Sevcsik, A. M., Coste, T., Strosberg, A. D., and Marullo, S. (1999) Hepatology 29, 1730-1738[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4. George, J., Roulot, D., Koteliansky, V. E., and Bissell, D. M. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 12719-12724[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Hellerbrand, C., Stefanovic, B., Giordano, F., Burchardt, E. R., and Brenner, D. A. (1999) J. Hepatol. 30, 77-87[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6. Ueno, H., Sakamoto, T., Nakamura, T., Qi, Z., Astuchi, N., Takeshita, A., Shimizu, K., and Ohashi, H. (2000) Hum. Gene Ther. 11, 33-42[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7. Milani, S., Herbst, H., Schuppan, D., Grappone, C., and Heinrichs, O. E. (1995) J. Hepatol 22, 71-76[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. Nakamura, T., Sakata, R., Ueno, T., Sata, M., and Ueno, H. (2000) Hepatology 32, 247-255[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Yata, Y., Gotwals, P., Koteliansky, V., and Rockey, D. C. (2002) Hepatology 35, 1022-1030[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
10. Ramadori, G., Knittel, T., Odenthal, M., Schwogler, S., Neubauer, K., and Meyer zum Buschenfelde, K. H. (1992) Gastroenterology 103, 1313-1321[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11. Friedman, S. L., Yamasaki, G., and Wong, L. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 10551-10558[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Bissell, D. M., Wang, S. S., Jarnagin, W. R., and Roll, F. J. (1995) J. Clin. Invest. 96, 447-455[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Knittel, T., Janneck, T., Muller, L., Fellmer, P., and Ramadori, G. (1996) Hepatology 24, 352-360[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Piek, E., Heldin, C. H., and Ten Dijke, P. (1999) FASEB J. 13, 2105-2124[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Tsukazaki, T., Chiang, T. A., Davison, A. F., Attisano, L., and Wrana, J. L. (1998) Cell 95, 779-791[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16. Sakou, T., Onishi, T., Yamamoto, T., Nagamine, T., Sampath, T., and Ten Dijke, P. (1999) J. Bone Miner. Res. 14, 1145-1152[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17. Flanders, K. C., Kim, E. S., and Roberts, A. B. (2001) Dev. Dyn. 220, 141-154[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18. Weinstein, M., Yang, X., Li, C., Xu, X., Gotay, J., and Deng, C. X. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 9378-9383[Abstract/Free Full Text]
19. Ashcroft, G. S., Yang, X., Glick, A. B., Weinstein, M., Letterio, J. L., Mizel, D. E., Anzano, M., Greenwell-Wild, T., Wahl, S. M., Deng, C., and Roberts, A. B. (1999) Nat. Cell Biol. 1, 260-266[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
20. Labbe, E., Silvestri, C., Hoodless, P. A., Wrana, J. L., and Attisano, L. (1998) Mol. Cell 2, 109-120[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
21. Zawel, L., Dai, J. L., Buckhaults, P., Zhou, S., Kinzler, K. W., Vogelstein, B., and Kern, S. E. (1998) Mol. Cell 1, 611-617[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
22. Dennler, S., Itoh, S., Vivien, D., ten Dijke, P., Huet, S., and Gauthier, J. M. (1998) EMBO J. 17, 3091-3100[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Dennler, S., Huet, S., and Gauthier, J. M. (1999) Oncogene 18, 1643-1648[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24. Yagi, K., Goto, D., Hamamoto, T., Takenoshita, S., Kato, M., and Miyazono, K. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 703-709[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Choy, L., Skillington, J., and Derynck, R. (2000) J. Cell Biol. 149, 667-682[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26. Piek, E., Ju, W., Heyer, J., Escalante-Alcalde, D., Stewart, C. L., Weinstein, M., Deng, C., Kucherlapati, R., Boettinger, E. P., and Roberts, A. B. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 19945-19953[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Friedman, S. L. (1993) Methods Toxicol. 1A, 292-310
28. Chen, Y., Lebrun, J. J., and Vale, W. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 12992-12997[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Genovese, C., Rowe, D., and Kream, B. (1984) Biochemistry 23, 6210-6216[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30. Yan, W., Vellucci, V. F., and Reiss, M. (2000) Oncol. Res. 12, 157-167[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
31. Souchelnytskyi, S., Tamaki, K., Engstrom, U., Wernstedt, C., ten Dijke, P., and Heldin, C. H. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 28107-28115[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Liu, X., Sun, Y., Constantinescu, S. N., Karam, E., Weinberg, R. A., and Lodish, H. F. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 10669-10674[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Abdollah, S., Macias-Silva, M., Tsukazaki, T., Hayashi, H., Attisano, L., and Wrana, J. L. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 27678-27685[Abstract/Free Full Text]
34. DiGiovanna, M. P., Roussel, R. R., and Stern, D. F. (1996) Current Protocols in Molecular Biology , Vol. Unit 18.6 , pp. 1-19, John Wiley & Sons
35. Eickelberg, O., Kohler, E., Reichenberger, F., Bertschin, S., Woodtli, T., Erne, P., Perruchoud, A. P., and Roth, M. (1999) Am. J. Physiol. 276, L814-L824[Abstract/Free Full Text]
36. Dooley, S., Delvoux, B., Lahme, B., Mangasser-Stephan, K., and Gressner, A. M. (2000) Hepatology 31, 1094-1106[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
37. Knittel, T., Fellmer, P., and Ramadori, G. (1996) Gastroenterology 111, 745-754[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
38. Bachem, M. G., Sell, K. M., Melchior, R., Kropf, J., Eller, T., and Gressner, A. M. (1993) Virchows Arch. B Cell Pathol. Incl. Mol. Pathol. 63, 123-130[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
39. Bachem, M. G., Riess, U., Melchior, R., Sell, K. M., and Gressner, A. M. (1989) FEBS Lett. 257, 134-137[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
40. Weiner, F. R., Giambrone, M. A., Czaja, M. J., Shah, A., Annoni, G., Takahashi, S., Eghbali, M., and Zern, M. A. (1990) Hepatology 11, 111-117[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
41. Pierreux, C. E., Nicolas, F. J., and Hill, C. S. (2000) Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 9041-9054[Abstract/Free Full Text]
42. Nakao, A., Afrakhte, M., Moren, A., Nakayama, T., Christian, J. L., Heuchel, R., Itoh, S., Kawabata, M., Heldin, N. E., Heldin, C. H., and ten Dijke, P. (1997) Nature 389, 631-635[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
43. Wu, D., Luo, S., Wang, Y., Zhuang, L., Chen, Y., and Peng, C. (2001) Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 175, 111-121[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
44. Hocevar, B. A., Brown, T. L., and Howe, P. H. (1999) EMBO J. 18, 1345-1356[Abstract/Free Full Text]
45. Dooley, S., Streckert, M., Delvoux, B., and Gressner, A. M. (2001) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 283, 554-562[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
46. Goto, D., Nakajima, H., Mori, Y., Kurasawa, K., Kitamura, N., and Iwamoto, I. (2001) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 281, 1100-1105[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
47. Bachem, M. G., Meyer, D., Melchior, R., Sell, K. M., and Gressner, A. M. (1992) J. Clin. Invest. 89, 19-27[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
48. Williams, E. J., Cochrane, B. C., and Benyon, R. C. (2001) in Cells of the Hepatic Sinusoid (Wisse, E. , Knook, D. L. , de Zanger, R. , and Arthur, M. J. P., eds), Vol. 8 , pp. 191-194, The Kupffer Cell Foundation, Leiden
49. Dooley, S., Delvoux, B., Streckert, M., Bonzel, L., Stopa, M., ten Dijke, P., and Gressner, A. M. (2001) FEBS Lett. 502, 4-10[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
50. De Bleser, P. J., Niki, T., Xu, G., Rogiers, V., and Geerts, A. (1997) Hepatology 26, 905-912[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
51. McCaffrey, T. A., Consigli, S., Du, B., Falcone, D. J., Sanborn, T. A., Spokojny, A. M., and Bush, H. L., Jr. (1995) J. Clin. Invest. 96, 2667-2675[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
52. Chen, R. H., Ebner, R., and Derynck, R. (1993) Science 260, 1335-1338[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
53. Franzen, P., Ichijo, H., and Miyazono, K. (1993) Exp. Cell Res. 207, 1-7[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
54. Saitoh, M., Nishitoh, H., Amagasa, T., Miyazono, K., Takagi, M., and Ichijo, H. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 2769-2775[Abstract/Free Full Text]
55. Lu, S. L., Kawabata, M., Imamura, T., Miyazono, K., and Yuasa, Y. (1999) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 259, 385-390[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
56. Wrana, J. L. (1999) Hepatology 29, 1909-1910[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
57. Gressner, A. M., Krull, N., and Bachem, M. G. (1994) Pathol. Res. Pract. 190, 864-882[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
58. Knittel, T., Mehde, M., Kobold, D., Saile, B., Dinter, C., and Ramadori, G. (1999) J. Hepatol. 30, 48-60[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
59. Bauer, M., and Schuppan, D. (2001) FEBS Lett. 502, 1-3[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
60. Clouthier, D. E., Comerford, S. A., and Hammer, R. E. (1997) J. Clin. Invest. 100, 2697-2713[Abstract/Free Full Text]
61. Qi, Z., Atsuchi, N., Ooshima, A., Takeshita, A., and Ueno, H. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 2345-2349[Abstract/Free Full Text]
62. Kanzler, S., Lohse, A. W., Keil, A., Henninger, J., Dienes, H. P., Schirmacher, P., Rose-John, S., zum Buschenfelde, K. H., and Blessing, M. (1999) Am. J. Physiol. 276, G1059-G1068[Abstract/Free Full Text]
63. Inagaki, Y., Mamura, M., Kanamaru, Y., Greenwel, P., Nemoto, T., Takehara, K., Ten Dijke, P., and Nakao, A. (2001) J. Cell. Physiol. 187, 117-123[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
64. Roberts, A. B., Piek, E., Bottinger, E. P., Ashcroft, G., Mitchell, J. B., and Flanders, K. C. (2001) Chest 120, 43S-47S[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
65. Schnabl, B., Kweon, Y. O., Frederick, J. P., Wang, X. F., Rippe, R. A., and Brenner, D. A. (2001) Hepatology 34, 89-100[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
66. Itoh, F., Divecha, N., Brocks, L., Oomen, L., Janssen, H., Calafat, J., Itoh, S., and Dijke Pt, P. (2002) Genes Cells 7, 321-331[Abstract/Free Full Text]
67. Tahashi, Y., Matsuzaki, K., Date, M., Yoshida, K., Furukawa, F., Sugano, Y., Matsushita, M., Himeno, Y., Inagaki, Y., and Inoue, K. (2002) Hepatology 35, 49-61[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
68. Feldmann, K., Sebald, W., and Knaus, P. (2002) Eur. J. Immunol. 32, 1393-1402[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
69. Lo, R. S., and Massague, J. (1999) Nat. Cell Biol. 1, 472-478[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
70. Kurisaki, A., Kose, S., Yoneda, Y., Heldin, C. H., and Moustakas, A. (2001) Mol. Biol. Cell 12, 1079-1091[Abstract/Free Full Text]
71. Xu, L., Chen, Y. G., and Massague, J. (2000) Nat. Cell Biol. 2, 559-562[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
72. Stopa, M., Benes, V., Ansorge, W., Gressner, A. M., and Dooley, S. (2000) Mamm. Genome 11, 169-176[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
73. Dai, J. L., Schutte, M., Bansal, R. K., Wilentz, R. E., Sugar, A. Y., and Kern, S. E. (1999) Mol. Carcinog. 26, 37-43[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]


Copyright © 2003 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.