Insulin-Like Growth Factor I Receptor Signaling and Nuclear Translocation of Insulin Receptor Substrates 1 and 2

HongZhi Sun, Xiao Tu, Marco Prisco, An Wu, Ivan Casiburi and Renato Baserga

Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Renato Baserga, M.D., Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, 233 South 10th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. E-mail: B_lupo{at}mail.jci.tju.edu.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
The insulin receptor substrate 1 (IRS-1) can translocate to the nuclei and nucleoli of several types of cells. Nuclear translocation can be induced by an activated insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-IR), and by certain oncogenes, such as the Simian virus 40 T antigen and v-src. We have asked whether IRS-2 could also translocate to the nuclei. In addition, we have studied the effects of functional mutations in the IGF-IR on nuclear translocation of IRS proteins. IRS-2 translocates to the nuclei of mouse embryo fibroblasts expressing the IGF-IR, but, at variance with IRS-1, does not translocate in cells expressing the Simian virus 40 T antigen. Mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of the IGF-IR abrogate translocation of the IRS proteins. Other mutations in the IGF-IR, which do not interfere with its mitogenicity but inhibit its transforming capacity, result in a decrease in translocation, especially to the nucleoli. Nuclear IRS-1 and IRS-2 interact with the upstream binding factor, which is a key regulator of RNA polymerase I activity and, therefore, rRNA synthesis. In 32D cells, wild-type, but not mutant, IRS-1 causes a significant activation of the ribosomal DNA promoter. The interaction of nuclear IRS proteins with upstream binding factor 1 constitutes the first direct link of these proteins with the ribosomal DNA transcription machinery.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
THE INSULIN RECEPTOR substrate (IRS) proteins function as specific docking proteins for IGF-I receptor (IGF-IR) and the insulin receptor (1). Signaling from the IRS proteins results in the activation of multiple downstream pathways. IRS-1 was the first docking protein to be identified, but other proteins with similar structure were soon described, including IRS-2 (1). The IRS proteins have been generally considered as proteins with an exclusively cytoplasmic/membrane localization (2, 3). However, recent reports have indicated that IRS-1 (4, 5, 6) and IRS-3 (7) can translocate to the nuclei of cells, at least under certain conditions. Nuclear translocation of IRS-1 has been observed in medulloblastoma cells expressing the human JCV T antigen (4), in 32D cells and mouse embryo fibroblasts (MEFs) stimulated with IGF-I or expressing the Simian virus 40 (SV40) T antigen (5, 6), and in MEFs transformed by the v-src oncogene (6). In MEFs, nuclear IRS-1 is prominently localized in the nucleolus (6). Nuclear localization of IRS-1 has also been reported in tissue sections of human breast cancer (8) and human medulloblastoma (4).

Nuclear translocation of IRS-1 in cells expressing the SV40 T antigen was not totally unexpected, as Zhou-Li et al. had demonstrated that IRS-1 coprecipitates with the SV40 T antigen (and vice versa) both in MEFs (9) and in 32D cells (10). In 32D cells, neither IRS-1 nor the T antigen, singly, can protect cells from apoptosis caused by IL-3 withdrawal. However, a combination of the two results in IL-3 independence (10). Therefore, in these cells, the association between T antigen and IRS-1 has also a functional significance. More difficult to explain is the mechanism(s) that results in nuclear translocation of IRS-1 in cells not expressing the T antigen. We explored this question by using mutants of IRS-1 to determine the IRS-1 domains required for IGF-IR-mediated nuclear translocation. Deletion of the phosphotyrosine binding (PTB) domain abrogates nuclear translocation of IRS-1. Deletion of the Pleckstrin domain, on the contrary, does not alter IGF-I-mediated translocation (5). Interestingly, a plasmid expressing only the pleckstrin homology (PH)/PTB domains of IRS-1 (11) translocated, at least partially, to the nuclei (5).

Since IRS-1 and IRS-3 can translocate to the nuclei, it is reasonable to ask whether the same may be true for IRS-2. One would also like to investigate the signals from the IGF-IR itself that regulate IRS translocation, as they may give us clues on the mechanisms of translocation. In the present experiments, therefore, we have asked two questions: does IRS-2 also translocate to the nuclei? And, if so, which are the domains of the IGF-IR required for nuclear translocation of IRS-1 and IRS-2? Our results indicate that IRS-2 translocates to the nuclei of MEFs stimulated by IGF-I, but not of MEFs devoid of IGF-IR and expressing the SV40 T antigen. As to the domains of the IGF-IR required for translocation, the tyrosine kinase (TK) domain is essential. A triple mutation at Y1131, Y1135, and Y1136 abrogates the ability of the IGF-IR to induce nuclear translocation of IRS-1 and IRS-2. Other mutations, detailed below, result in decreased translocation (but not abrogation) of both proteins. In addition, we find that IRS-2, like IRS-1, seems to translocate to the nucleolus, but to a lesser extent. Nucleolar translocation is decreased also in cells expressing IGF-IR mutants that are mitogenic but nontransforming. IRS-1 and, to a lesser extent, IRS-2 immunoprecipitate the upstream binding factor (UBF) from nuclear lysates. UBF is a major regulator of RNA polymerase I activity and, therefore, of rRNA synthesis (12, 13, 14). In agreement with this finding, the presence of IRS-1 in 32D cells significantly increases the activity of the ribosomal DNA (rDNA) promoter. Conversely, the decreased translocation in cells expressing the mutant IGF-I receptors is accompanied by a decrease in rRNA synthesis. The interaction of nuclear IRS proteins, especially IRS-1, with UBF provides a direct link between nuclear IRS proteins and the transcription machinery of the rDNA promoter. It also provides an explanation for the role of IRS proteins in determining cell and body size (see Discussion).


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
For these investigations we mostly used parental R- cells and R- derived cells. R- cells are a 3T3-like cell line of MEFs with a deletion of the IGF-I receptor genes (15). The R- derived cell lines included cell lines expressing the SV40 T antigen or the human IGF-IR, either wild type or mutants. These cell lines are listed in Materials and Methods, where the appropriate references are given. The status of the IGF-IR in all cell lines was monitored by Western blots and found to be as previously described (16). For the subcellular localization of IRS-1 and IRS-2, we used three different methods: subcellular fractionation, confocal microscopy, and immunohistochemistry.

We have previously shown by confocal microscopy that IRS-1 is not translocated to the nuclei of R- cells (6). Figure 1AGo shows an immunohistochemistry picture of R- cells, stained with an antibody to IRS-2 and counterstained with hematoxylin. IRS-2, like IRS-1, is essentially localized to the cytoplasm of R- cells (see also the subcellular fractionation in Fig. 4Go). There are some specks of IRS protein over the nuclei, but, in immunohistochemistry, there is always a thin layer of cytoplasm over the nuclei. For a proper evaluation, compare the color of the nuclei in panel A with the color of the nuclei in panel D, where the nuclei are stained by an antibody to IRS-1 (see below).



View larger version (85K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. Subcellular Localization of IRS-2 in R- and R-/T Cells

R- cells, stimulated with IGF-I (50 ng/ml) for 8 h, were stained with the appropriate antibody (see Materials and Methods). Panel A shows an immunohistochemistry picture. IRS-2 is detectable only in the cytosol. Panels B–D, R-/T cells in serum-free medium were stained with antibodies to IRS-1 or IRS-2 for immunohistochemistry and confocal microscopy. In the latter technique, the nucleoli were stained with an antibody to nucleolin (green), whereas in immunohistochemistry, the nuclei were stained with hematoxylin. IRS-2 is detectable only in the cytosol (panels B and C). The weak positivity of the two nuclei in panel B can be explained by the layer of cytoplasm covering the nuclei (see text). In contrast, when the nuclei are stained by an antibody, they assume the color shown in panel D, where R-/T cells were stained with an antibody to IRS-1. The cells were examined in three different conditions: 10% serum, serum-free medium, and IGF-I. Regardless of the condition used, the results were exactly the same.

 


View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 4. Effect of Mutations of the IGF-IR on Translocation of IRS Proteins to the Nucleus

In panel A, the lysates were from cells expressing an IGF-IR with a mutation in the TK domain (3Y, mutated at Y1131, 1135, and 1136). Subcellular fractionation and Western blots were carried out as in previous figures. R- cells were used as controls. In panel B, a similar experiment was carried out on R-/{delta}1245 cells, which express an IGF-IR truncated at residue 1245 (i.e. missing the last 92 amino acids).

 
In cells expressing the T antigen, IRS-1 is predominantly localized to the nuclei, both in 32D cells (5) and in MEFs (5, 6). We therefore compared the subcellular localization of IRS-1 and IRS-2 in R-/T cells. R-/T cells are R- cells expressing the SV40 T antigen (15) and these cells stain strongly positive with an antibody to T antigen (not shown). The results for IRS-2 are shown in Fig. 1Go (immunohistochemistry in panel B and confocal microscopy in panel C). For confocal microscopy, we present only the merged pictures of cells in serum-free medium, but the results were essentially the same when the cells were stimulated with IGF-I. IRS-2 is essentially cytoplasmic (panel B). When the cells are examined by confocal microscopy, IRS-2 is also detectable only in the cytosol (panel C). The nuclei appear as punched out empty spaces dotted with the green specks of nucleolin-stained nucleoli. In contrast, notice the color of the nuclei (and the nucleoli) in the immunohistochemistry picture of R-/T cells stained with an antibody to IRS-1 (panel D).

These results were confirmed by subcellular fractionation and Western blots (Fig. 2Go). IRS-1 is present in the nuclear fraction of R-/T cells, but IRS-2 is not. Nuclear extracts were immunoprecipitated with antibodies to either IRS-1 or IRS-2, and the resultant blots were stained with an antibody to T antigen. T antigen was detectable only in the IRS-1 antibody immunoprecipitates (data not shown). The combined results of subcellular fractionation, immunohistochemistry, confocal microscopy, and immunoprecipitation indicate that in R-/T cells, IRS-1, but not IRS-2, translocates to the nuclei.



View larger version (57K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 2. Subcellular Localization of IRS-1 and IRS-2 in R-/T and R+ Cells

Cytosolic and nuclear fractions were prepared as described in Materials and Methods from cells in serum-free medium (0) or after IGF-I stimulation (8 h). The lysates were used for Western blots with the antibodies to the respective proteins indicated to the right of the panel. As controls for the purity of the subcellular fractions, we used an antibody to c-jun for the nuclei and an antibody to Grb2 for the cytosol.

 
R+ Cells
The failure of IRS-2 to translocate to the nuclei of R-/T cells was unexpected, and we asked whether this was peculiar to T antigen or to IRS-2 itself. We therefore tested the translocation of IRS-2 in R+ cells, which are MEFs expressing a high number of wild-type human IGF-IRs (16). Both IRS-1 and IRS-2 are found in the nuclear fraction of R+ cells (Fig. 2Go). IRS-1 translocation confirms the report of Tu et al. (6). We used as a control a cell lysate of parental 32D cells, which do not express IRS-1 or IRS-2 (17, 18). This lysate is negative for both IRS-1 and IRS-2 (not shown here but shown in Fig. 4Go). Grb2 and c-Jun antibodies were used to monitor the purity of the subcellular fractions.

The IRS proteins in R+ cells are translocated also in cells kept in serum-free medium. R+ cells, like most R- derived cells, produce a detectable amount of IGF-I (19). When they express exogenous IGF-IRs, R- derived cells grow, albeit slowly, in serum-free medium. Incidentally, the 8-h point was chosen after a time course (not shown, but shown in Ref. 6) indicated that 8 h is the most reliable point.

The nuclear translocation of IRS-2 in R+ cells was confirmed by confocal microscopy (Fig. 3Go). The cells were stained for IRS-2 (rhodamine) and nucleolin [FITC (fluorescein isothiocyanate)]. Although there is some IRS-2 in the cytoplasm, a substantial fraction of the protein is now detectable in the nuclei of R+ cells, as already shown for IRS-1 (5, 6). The nucleoli, in the merged picture, show mix staining for IRS-2 and nucleolin (greenish-yellow nucleoli), but less so than with IRS-1. The conclusion, though, is that IRS-2 can also localize to the nucleoli of R+ cells, but not as strongly as IRS-1.



View larger version (49K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 3. Nuclear Translocation of IRS-2 in R+ Cells

Confocal microscopy of R+ cells stimulated with IGF-I and stained with antibodies to IRS-2 and nucleolin. IRS-2 is found in the nucleus as well as in the cytoplasm (compare with Fig. 1Go). The merged picture shows that part of IRS-2 is nucleolar. FITC, Fluorescein isothiocyanate.

 
Effect of Mutations in the ß-Subunit of the IGF-IR on the Nuclear Translocation of IRS-1 and IRS-2
The MEFs expressing the mutant receptors were derived from R- cells, and therefore do not express wild-type receptors. The first mutant IGF-IR we tested is the mutant we designate as GR48 (16). It is a receptor where the three tyrosines of the TK domain (1131, 1135, and 1136) have been mutated (20). Figure 4AGo is a Western blot of lysates from the cytosol and nuclear fractions of R- cells and R- 3Y cells expressing the TK mutant receptors. Neither IRS-1 nor IRS-2 translocate to the nuclei of R- cells or of R- cells expressing the TK mutant of the IGF-IR. This was not surprising because the TK domain mutant is essentially a dead receptor, which fails to phosphorylate IRS-1 (20). The experiment was repeated, and the results were again so clear that this mutant receptor was no longer pursued.

We then focused on three other mutants of the IGF-IR that are functional but not completely so. These mutants are the {delta}1245 mutant (in which the receptor is truncated at residue 1245), the Y950F mutant (tyrosine 950 mutated to phenylalanine), and the 4-serine (4-ser) mutant (in which the serines at 1280–1283 have been mutated). The R- cells expressing these mutants have been described in previous papers (16, 21, 22). A common characteristic of MEFs expressing these mutant receptors is that they respond to IGF-I with mitogenesis, but they can no longer transform R- cells (colony formation in soft agar), whereas R+ and R-/GR15 cells (both of them expressing wild-type receptors) are transformed (16).

{delta}1245.
Figure 4BGo is a Western blot of cytosolic and nuclear fractions obtained from the R-/{delta}1245 cells (receptor truncated at residue 1245). With these cells, both IRS-1 and IRS-2 can be found in the nuclear fractions. Notice that lysates of parental 32D cells are completely negative for both proteins (left lane). Nuclear translocation was confirmed by immunohistochemistry and confocal microscopy (Fig. 5Go). In R-/{delta}1245 cells stimulated for 8 h with IGF-I, IRS-1 definitely translocates to the nuclei of these cells, and also to the nucleoli, as in R+ cells (again compare the color of the nuclei with the color of the nuclei in Fig. 1Go). There is partial translocation of IRS-2, but less than IRS-1, and the nucleoli in the merged picture conserve their green staining. Repeated experiments, even in different culture conditions, confirmed a reduced translocation of IRS proteins in cells expressing the {delta}1245 receptor and the lack of nucleolar localization of IRS-2.



View larger version (114K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 5. Nuclear Translocation of IRS-1 and IRS-2 in MEFs Expressing a Truncated IGF-IR

The cells used were R-/{delta}1245 cells, and the pictures shown were obtained from cells stimulated with IGF-I (50 ng/ml) for 8 h. Immunohistochemistry is on the left, confocal microscopy is on the right. In both cases, the cells were stained with the respective antibodies to IRS-1 (A and B) or IRS-2 (C and D). For confocal microscopy (we show only the merged picture), the cells were also stained with an antibody to nucleolin (green). The results were similar in serum-free medium.

 
Y950F and 4-ser Mutants
The results with R- cells expressing a human IGF-IR with a mutation at tyrosine 950 are shown in Figs. 6AGo and 7Go. By subcellular fractionation, in R- cells expressing the Y950F mutant receptor, IRS-2 translocates to the nuclei, but in lesser amounts than IRS-1. This was confirmed by immunohistochemistry and confocal microscopy (Fig. 7Go). There is some IRS-2 in the nuclei of these cells, but less than IRS-1, and some of the nuclei are negative. The nucleoli in cells stained for IRS-2 are green-colored, as in R-/{delta}1245 cells, and contrast with the yellow color of nucleoli in the same cells stained for IRS-1.



View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 6. Subcellular Localization of IRS-1 and IRS-2 in R- Cells Expressing the Y950F and the 4-ser Mutant IGF-IRs

Fractionation, Western blots, and antibodies were the same as in previous figures. Panel A shows blots from R-/Y950F cells; panel B is a blot of R-/4-ser cells. Lysates from 32D cells are used as before as negative controls.

 


View larger version (148K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 7. Immunohistochemistry and Confocal Microscopy of R-/Y950 Cells

Procedures and antibodies were the same as in previous figures. For confocal microscopy (merged pictures only), the cells were stained for nucleolin (green) and either IRS-1 (A and B) or IRS-2 (C and D).

 
The results obtained with R- cells expressing a human IGF-IR with a mutation at serine 1280–1283 are shown in Figs. 6BGo and 8Go. The results are very much the same as with the previous mutant receptor. Both proteins translocate, IRS-2 less than IRS-1 (Fig. 6BGo), and the nucleoli do not seem to stain for IRS-2 (Fig. 8Go). The differences between IRS-1 and IRS-2 are concordant by immunohistochemistry, confocal microscopy, and subcellular fractionation. The differences in nucleolar staining are especially striking.



View larger version (131K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 8. Immunohistochemistry and Confocal Microscopy of R-/4-ser Cells

Procedures and antibodies were the same as in previous figures. For confocal microscopy (merged pictures only), the cells were stained for nucleolin (green) and either IRS-1 (A and B) or IRS-2 (C and D).

 
IRS-1 and IRS-2 Immunoprecipitate UBF in R+ Cells
The localization of IRS-1 in the nucleoli is unequivocal. In previous papers (5, 6), as well as in this paper, IRS-1 clearly localizes to the nucleoli of MEFs expressing the IGF-IR. The results with IRS-2 are equivocal. In R+ cells, there are yellow nucleoli in confocal microscopy merged pictures of cells stained with antibodies to IRS-2 and nucleolin. However, all cells expressing the mutant receptors are negative for nucleolar staining by an antibody to IRS-2. The UBF is a protein that binds to and regulates the activity of RNA polymerase I (14). It is an exclusively nucleolar protein (12, 23). Tu et al. (6) have shown that an antibody to IRS-1 immunoprecipitates UBF from nuclear extracts (but not from cytosolic fractions) of R-/T cells. We asked whether IRS-1 and IRS-2 could immunoprecipitate UBF from nuclear extracts of R+ cells. As a negative control, we used extracts of 32D cells, which do not express IRS-1 or IRS-2 (17). As additional controls, we used R-/T and R-/4 ser cells, the former because IRS-2 does not even translocate to the nuclei of R-/T cells, the latter because IRS-2 translocates to the nucleus but leaves the nucleoli green-colored. The results of these experiments are shown in Fig. 9AGo. Whether in R+ cells or in R-/4 ser cells, an antibody to IRS-1 is more efficient than an antibody to IRS-2 in immunoprecipitating UBF from nuclear extracts. The main band is UBF1, which is the active form (14). The lower band in some of the lanes is UBF2, the inactive form of UBF, which is 37 amino acids shorter than UBF1 (14). A small amount of UBF is detectable also in blots from R-/4 ser cells immunoprecipitated with IRS-2. It is difficult to explain this result as a contamination, because the IRS antibodies do not immunoprecipitate UBF in 32D cells (no IRS-1 or -2). The antibody to IRS-2 fails to immunoprecipitate UBF in R-/T cells, where IRS-2 does not translocate to the nucleus.



View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 9. Coprecipitation of UBF by IRS Proteins

A, Nuclear lysates from R-, R+, and R-/4-ser cells were immunoprecipitated with antibodies to either IRS-1 or IRS-2. Whole-cell lysates from 32D cells were also subjected to immunopreciptation with the same antibodies. The immunoprecipitates were blotted, and the blots were stained with an antibody to UBF (Materials and Methods). B, The experiment was essentially repeated with R+ cells, but the immunoprecipitates were separated on a 7.5% gel. Lysates were from unstimulated cells or cells stimulated with IGF-I for 8 h. Most of the UBF immunoprecipitated by the anti-IRS antibodies is UBF1, the active form. The lower band is UBF2. C, rRNA synthesis in R- derived cells. The cell lines indicated above the lanes (see text) were made quiescent and then stimulated with IGF-I (50 ng/ml) for 16 h. The cells were then labeled for 4 h with 32P and then incubated again in fresh growth medium for an additional 2 h. RNA was extracted and separated by electrophoresis. Total amount and autoradiograph of the gel were carried out as described in Materials and Methods. D, Immunoprecipitation of UBF by an antibody to IRS-1 in the cell lines indicated above the lanes. The last lane is a Western blot of whole lysate from 32D IGF-IR/IRS-1 cells, using the antibody to UBF. E, rRNA synthesis in the same cell lines of panel D. The amounts of RNA were monitored as before, but they are not shown.

 
To confirm that the UBF form immunoprecipitated by IRS-2 was the active one, the experiment was repeated. Figure 9BGo shows a Western blot, where the proteins obtained by immunoprecipitation with the anti-IRS antibodies were run on a 7.5% gel. There are two bands, but the predominant form, both with IRS-1 and IRS-2 antibodies, is UBF1. There is also an increase in UBF amounts in stimulated cells, in agreement with previous reports from the literature (14).

We repeated the experiment with another cell line, 32D IGF-IR PHPTB IRS-1, derived from 32D cells. This cell line (5) expresses a mutant IRS-1 that comprises only the first 300 amino acids. This mutant IRS-1 translocates to the nucleus, but less than the wild-type protein (5). Panel D shows that in these cells, an antibody to IRS-1 coprecipitate UBF but to a lesser extent than in cells expressing the wild-type protein. It seems therefore that the amount of UBF1 interacting with IRS-1 is a reflection of the extent of nuclear translocation. The left lane of panel D is the control, from cells (32D IGF-IR) that do not express IRS-1.

rRNA Synthesis
In a previous paper (6), we showed that the presence of IRS-1 in the nuclei of 32D-derived cells markedly increases rRNA synthesis. Because the cells expressing three of the mutant receptors have nuclear translocation, but a diminished nucleolar translocation, we have asked whether these mutations have any effect on rRNA synthesis. The cells indicated in Fig. 9CGo, stimulated with IGF-I, were labeled with 32P for 4 h, followed by a 2-h incubation in growth medium (no radioactivity). The RNA was extracted, and the gel was autoradiographed (panel C). There is a marked decrease in rRNA labeling in cells expressing the mutant receptors, in comparison to R+ cells, that express the wild-type IGF-IR. The decrease showed by autoradiography was confirmed by counting the radioactivity in the bands (not shown). In Fig. 9EGo, we show rRNA synthesis in the cell lines used in panel D, which are derived from 32D cells. The cells expressing the wild-type IRS-1 have the highest rate of rRNA synthesis, whereas the PH/PTB mutant, which translocates to the nucleus, but to a lesser extent, synthesizes rRNA at a rate intermediate between the cells expressing the wild-type IRS-1 and the cells not expressing IRS-1.

Activation of the rDNA Promoter
Activation of rRNA synthesis requires an active UBF (23, 24), in agreement with our findings in Fig. 9Go, where the levels of rRNA synthesis seem to correlate with the amount of UBF immunoprecipitated by an antibody to IRS-1. We asked next whether the activation of the IRS-1 pathway could directly increase the activity of the rDNA promoter. For this purpose, we used the miniribosome gene of Grummt and co-workers (23, 25), in which a specific rDNA sequence is driven by the rDNA promoter. The miniribosome gene was transfected transiently in the appropriate 32D-derived cell lines, and the amount of transcription was determined by Northern blots and counting of the bands (Fig. 10Go). The activation of the rDNA promoter is highest in 32D IGF-IR IRS-1 cells, clearly above 32D IGF-IR cells, that do not express IRS-1. This is a significant finding because, at this time after shifting from IL-3 to IGF-I, both cell lines are growing exponentially (18, 26). Despite the fact that both cell lines are growing, the presence of IRS-1 markedly increases rDNA promoter activation. The result is confirmed by the fact that mutant IRS-1 proteins, although they can also translocate to the nuclei (see Ref. 5 ; albeit less efficiently) are not as effective as the wild-type protein in activating the rDNA promoter. These results indicate that the activation of the IGF-IR signaling pathway increases transcription from the rDNA promoter.



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 10. Activation of the rDNA Promoter

The miniribosome gene described by Grummt and collaborators (see Materials and Methods) was transfected into 32D-derived cells, which were then incubated in IGF-I (no IL-3) for 24 h. The expression of the miniribosome gene was determined by Northern blot with the appropriate probe and is shown in the upper panel. The bands were then counted in a liquid scintillation counter (lower panel). The experiment has been repeated. 32D IGF-IR cells do not express IRS-1; dPH refers to IRS-1 with a deletion of the pleckstrin domain; and PHPTB is an IRS-1 comprising only the PH and PTB domains (5 ).

 
The {delta} Pleckstrin Domain of IRS-1
Prisco et al. (5) reported that a mutant IRS-1 lacking the Pleckstrin domain translocated very efficiently to the nuclei of R+ cells. This was at variance with the observation of Lassak et al. (4), who found that IRS-1 with a deletion of the PH domain did not translocate to the nuclei of medulloblastoma cells expressing the human equivalent of the SV40 T antigen. We asked whether the PH domain of IRS proteins may be involved in translocation by T antigen. We tested this hypothesis by investigating the cellular localization of the PH domain deletion mutant of IRS-1 in R-/T cells. R-/T cells express IRS-1, and the antibody we use can not distinguish between the endogenous wild-type IRS-1 and a transfected mutant IRS-1. We therefore used a plasmid expressing a mouse IRS-1 with a deletion of the PH domain and a FLAG tag at the 3'-end (5). The plasmid was transiently expressed in R-/T cells. Figure 11AGo shows that the FLAG epitope is detected only in the cytosol fraction of R-/T cells. This was confirmed by confocal microscopy (panel B), where the cells are stained for FLAG and the nuclei are stained with propidium iodide. Again, the FLAG-tagged mutant IRS-1 is limited to the cytoplasm of R-/T cells. We repeated the experiment, and this time we compared R-/T cells to R+ cells, also transfected with the {delta}PH mutant of IRS-1. Figure 11CGo shows the dramatic difference between the two cell lines. Both by immunohistochemistry and by confocal microscopy, the FLAG-tagged {delta}PH IRS-1 is in the cytoplasm of R-/T cells (1, 2) and (largely) in the nuclei of R+ cells (3, 4). In this experiment, the nuclei were stained with an antibody to Id1.



View larger version (58K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 11. IRS-1 with a Deletion of the Pleckstrin Domain Does Not Translocate to the Nuclei of R-/T Cells

Mouse IRS-1 with a deletion of the Pleckstrin domain was tagged with a FLAG epitope (5 ) and transiently transfected into R-/T cells. Western blots of nuclear and cytoplasmic fractions show that the FLAG-tagged protein is detectable only in the cytosol fraction (panel A). For confocal microscopy, the cell nuclei were stained with propidium iodide, while IRS-1 was stained with an anti-FLAG antibody. IRS-1 is essentially localized exclusively to the cytosol (panel B). Parental R-/T cells are negative for FLAG staining. Panel C, Immunohistochemistry and confocal microscopy of cells transfected with {delta}PH/IRS-1/FLAG (5 ) and stained with an antibody to FLAG: 1 and 2 are R-/T cells; 3 and 4 are R+ cells. In 2 and 4, the nuclei were stained with an antibody to Id1. The FLAG-tagged {delta}PH/IRS-1 is in the cytoplasm of R-/T cells, but in the nucleus of R+ cells. FITC, Fluorescein isothiocyante.

 
Phosphorylation Status of the Translocated IRS Proteins
We asked next whether the IRS proteins in the nuclei of R+ cells were or were not tyrosyl phosphorylated. For this purpose, nuclear extracts were immunoprecipitated with antibodies to either IRS-1 or IRS-2, and the blots were stained with the same antibodies or with an antiphosphotyrosine antibody (see Materials and Methods). Figure 12Go, right panel, shows that tyrosyine-phosphorylated bands are detectable at the levels of IRS-1 and IRS-2. The blots were stripped and stained with the respective antibodies to the IRS proteins. Figure 12Go, left panel, shows that the two bands detected in the right panel are indeed IRS-1 and IRS-2. This experiment was repeated with the same results. These data indicate that the IRS proteins in the nuclei of R+ cells can be tyrosyl phosphorylated. They do not state whether all of the nuclear IRS proteins are phosphorylated, nor do they indicate whether phosphorylation is necessary for translocation. However, an IRS-1 with a deletion of the PTB domain does not translocate to nuclei (5).



View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 12. Nuclear IRS-1 and IRS-2 Are Tyrosyl Phosphorylated

Nuclei were prepared from R+ cells, and nuclear extracts were immunopreciptated with an antibody to either IRS-1 or IRS-2. The panel on the right shows the blot stained with an antibody to phosphotyrosine (PY20); both IRS-1 and IRS-2 are detectable as phosphorylated bands. This was confirmed in the left panel, which shows the same blot stained with an antibody to either IRS-1 or IRS-2. The respective bands are clearly detectable.

 

    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
Among the significant and novel findings of this investigation are: 1) IRS-2 translocates to the nuclei of R+ cells (R- cells expressing a wild-type human IGF-IR), but not to the nuclei of R-/T cells (no IGF-IRs, but expressing the SV40 T antigen). This is at variance with IRS-1, which translocates to the nuclei of both R+ and R-/T cells (Ref. 5 and this paper). 2) Of the mutant IGF-IRs tested, only the 3Y mutant fails to induce nuclear translocation of IRS-1 or IRS-2. 3) Other mutant receptors ({delta}1245,Y950, and 4 ser) show nuclear translocation of both IRS proteins, albeit somewhat reduced in comparison to the wild-type receptor. 4) IRS-1 translocates to the nucleoli in all instances, except in cells expressing the 3Y mutant receptor. 5) IRS-2 localization to the nucleoli is modest in R+ cells, and below levels detectable by confocal microscopy in the cell lines expressing the mutant receptors. 6) Both anti-IRS-1 and anti-IRS-2 antibodies coprecipitate UBF1 from nuclear lysates of R+ and R-/4 ser cells, but the IRS-1 antibody is more efficient. In R-/T cells, only the anti-IRS-1 antibody can coprecipitate UBF1. 7) Wild-type IRS-1 increases transcription from the rDNA promoter. Mutant IRS-1 proteins are much less effective. 8) The decreased nuclear and nucleolar translocation in cells expressing the mutant IGF-I receptors is accompanied by a decrease in rRNA synthesis. 9) The Pleckstrin domain of the IRS proteins is determinant for T antigen-dependent translocation, but not for IGF-I-mediated translocation.

In comparing the nuclear translocation of IRS-1 and IRS-2, two differences are striking: 1) With the mutant IGF-IR, IRS-2 translocation is more impaired than in the case of IRS-1, especially translocation to the nucleoli. 2) IRS-2 does not translocate to the nuclei of R-/T cells, while IRS-1 does.

The effects of IGF-IR mutations on nuclear translocation of IRS proteins indicate that the TK domain is an absolute requirement. The other mutations tested cause an inhibition, but not an abrogation, of nuclear translocation. The three cell lines expressing these mutant IGF-I receptors all respond with mitogenesis to the addition of IGF-I (16, 22), but they do not form colonies in soft agar. MEFs expressing the wild-type IGF-IR (R+ or R-/GR15 cells) form colonies in soft agar. We do not pretend to place a precise quantitative assessment of nuclear translocation in experiments based on immunohistochemistry and confocal microscopy, and, for this reason, the following statement is limited to the Discussion. When we look at the percentage of cells with nuclear translocated IRS proteins, we can state that 99% of the cells expressing the wild-type IGF-IR (R+ cells) had some IRS-1 or IRS-2 in the nuclei. In cells expressing the mutant receptors (except for the 3 Y receptor), IRS-1 was nuclear in about 90% of the cells examined, and IRS-2 was nuclear in about 40–60% of the cells. The subcellular fractionations are roughly in agreement with this estimate. However, it should be understood that none of the three techniques used to localize the IRS proteins in the nuclei are strictly quantitative. Even with subcellular fractionation, leakage of proteins from the nuclei and the partial breakdown of proteins that inevitably occurs in a lengthy procedure make quantitation elusive.

A very important question raised by our experiments is the nucleolar localization of IRS-2. From a previous paper (6) and from this one also, there is no question that IRS-1 can localize to the nucleoli of R+ or R-/T cells, where it interacts with nucleolin and UBF (Ref. 6 and this paper). The interaction of IRS-2 with the nucleolus is not as convincing. There is some IRS-2 colocalizing with nucleolin in R+ cells, but in cells expressing the mutant receptors, the nucleoli are green, as if there were no or little IRS-2 in the nucleoli. An antibody to IRS-2 does coprecipitate a small amount of UBF even in R-/4 ser cells. UBF is a nucleolar protein (14), and its localization to the nucleoli remains unchanged in a variety of growth conditions (24). A reasonable explanation for the interaction of IRS-2 with UBF is that there is a modest amount of IRS-2 in the nucleolus, below the level detectable by confocal microscopy. In support of this interpretation is the complete absence of UBF from nuclear extracts of R- T cells immunoprecipitated with an antibody to IRS-2. Alternatively, one could attribute the small amount of UBF to the fact that, during nuclear lysis, UBF and IRS-2 coexist in the lysis buffer. This may allow coprecipitation, even though the two proteins may be predominantly localized in different compartments. Both antibodies to IRS-1 and IRS-2 largely coprecipitate UBF1, which is the active isoform, while the lower form UBF2 is inactive (14).

In previous papers, nuclear IRS-1 seemed to be responsible for a marked increase in rRNA synthesis (5, 6). A decrease in nucleolar localization is accompanied by a substantial reduction in rRNA synthesis (present paper). This occurs in cells expressing the mutant IGF-I receptors, which are mitogenic but nontransforming (16). There are two possible explanations for this finding. One possibility is that nucleolar IRS-2 is necessary for the full activation of rRNA synthesis. This is unlikely, because in 32D cells (which do not express IRS-2), ectopic expression and nuclear translocation of IRS-1 are sufficient to increase rRNA synthesis (5, 6) and to increase cell size (26), which depends on increased ribosome biogenesis (27). A second explanation is that the mutations examined, especially the Y950F mutation, affect the binding of the IGF-IR to Shc, and the subsequent activation of the Ras/Raf/ERK pathways (16, 28). This is true also of the 4 ser mutation (28), and of the {delta}1245 mutation. Truncation at residue 1245 eliminates not only the 4 serine group, but also tyrosines 1250/1251, which interact with Shc (18). These mutations cause an attenuation of ERK activation (29, 30). Interestingly, UBF is phosphorylated and activated by ERK in response to growth factors (31). This explanation is in agreement with our data, indicating that attenuation of the ERK pathway in this model reduces rRNA synthesis, even when IRS proteins are present. It suggests that full activation of rRNA synthesis requires both a nuclear IRS-1 and a signal from the activated ERK proteins. This interpretation is supported by the finding that a combination of overexpressed IRS-1 and Ha-ras results in transformation of parental 32D cells (32). Even accepting a contribution from the ERK proteins, it is fair to say that our present findings and those reported by Tu et al. (6) suggest that the nuclear translocated IRS proteins play an important role in rRNA synthesis.

This brings us to the biological significance of our findings. Cell size is known to correlate strictly with protein amounts (33) and the amount of rRNA (34, 35, 36). As mentioned previously (27), genetic studies in yeast have confirmed that cell size largely depends on ribosome biogenesis. In turn, ribosome biogenesis is controlled by the rate of rRNA synthesis (37), which is dependent on the activity of RNA polymerase I (14, 38, 39). Cell size is strongly controlled, in vivo, by the IGF-IR, the IRS proteins, and their downstream effectors. Thus, cell size is regulated in Drosophila by the homologs of either IRS-1 (40) or S6K1 (41) or Akt (42). Particularly instructive is the Drosophila IRS homolog, called chico, which is Drosophila-only IRS protein and therefore equivalent to IRS-1 to -4. Deletion of chico reduces fly weight by 55–65%. The reduction in body and organ size is due both to a reduction in cell number and cell size. The role of IGF-IR and IRS signaling has also been demonstrated in mice with a targeted disruption of the IRS-1 (43) or the S6K1 (44) genes. Similarly, 32D IGF-IR cells expressing IRS-1 are larger than their parental cells (26). Finally, deletion of the IGF-IR genes and their ligand results in embryos that are only 30% in size in respect to wild-type littermates (45). Thus, direct evidence supports a major (albeit not exclusive) role of IRS proteins in determining cell size and, therefore, rRNA and protein production. Since UBF is a key regulator of RNA polymerase I activity (14, 24, 31, 34, 38), the interaction of IRS proteins, but especially of IRS-1, with UBF provides a mechanistic explanation for the effect of IRS-1 and chico on cell and body size. The interaction of IRS-1 (and IRS-2) with UBF1 constitutes the first direct link between nuclear IRS proteins and the transcription machinery of the rDNA promoter, which is indeed activated by wild-type IRS-1 in 32D cells (present paper). Less clear, at the moment, is the biological significance of IRS-1 interaction with nucleolin (6, 46).

The failure of IRS-2 to translocate to the nuclei of R-/T cells was confirmed by all three methods. In addition, an antibody to IRS-2 fails to coprecipitate the T antigen, which is instead precipitated by an antibody to IRS-1 (9, 10). It seems that IRS-2 does not interact with the SV40 T antigen, which explains its failure to translocate in R-/T cells. The PH domain is required for interaction of IRS-1 with JCV T antigen (4), the human counterpart of the SV40 T antigen (present paper). The PH domain, however, is not required for IGF-I-mediated translocation of IRS-1 in R+ cells (5). Our data show that the {delta}PH IRS-1 mutant, which translocates to the nuclei of cells with an activated IGF-IR (5), does not translocate to the nuclei in R-/T cells. Thus, IRS-1 with a deletion of the PH domain behaves, in respect to T antigen, like the wild-type IRS-2. It suggests that the PH domain of IRS-1 has a sequence for T antigen binding that is absent in wild-type IRS-2. An in silico analysis shows that the sequences of the PH domains of IRS-1 and IRS-2 have similarities and differences. While the ß-sheets and the {alpha}-helices are very well conserved, the interdomains are quite divergent (47). It is reasonable to hypothesize that the binding to T antigen will depend on these interdomains, a hypothesis that can be tested. This hypothesis could also apply to the difference in nucleolar localization between the two proteins. It may be mentioned that the PH domains of both IRS proteins contain a sequence that is similar to published nucleolar localization signals (48). At any rate, two conclusions are acceptable: IRS-2 seems to require an active IGF-IR for translocation, while IRS-1 can translocate also with the T antigen, in cells without IGF-IR, and is less affected by mutations in the receptor.

The evidence that the antibodies used for IRS-1 in these experiments actually detect IRS-1 and only IRS-1 has been given in previous papers from this laboratory and others (4, 5, 6). The results obtained by subcellular fractionation, confocal microscopy, and immunohistochemistry are all concordant. Furthermore, the nuclear localization of IRS-1 was confirmed using an IRS-1 with a FLAG epitope and competition with the peptide used to produce the antibody. We believe that the anti-IRS-2 antibody is also reliable for the following reasons. By subcellular fractionation and by confocal microscopy, the same antibody recognizes the presence of IRS-2 in the nuclei of R+ cells, and in the cytosol of R-/T cells. No IRS-1 or IRS-2 is detected by these antibodies in the nuclei of R- cells expressing the 3Y mutant of the IGF-IR or in lysates of 32D cells, which do not express these two proteins (17, 18).

Nuclear IRS proteins are tyrosyl phosphorylated. Given the unavoidable semiquantitative aspects of these experiments, we cannot say that all nuclear IRS proteins are phosphorylated, but this possibility is suggested by the failure of an IRS-1 with a deletion of the PTB domain to translocate to the nuclei (5). Translocation seems to be ligand independent. However, this is not quite true. As already mentioned, R- cells are known to secrete detectable amounts of IGF-I. When they are expressing the human IGF-IR (wild type or certain mutants), the cells grow, albeit slowly, in serum-free medium. Addition of IGF-I to the medium does increase growth rates (19).

In conclusion, we have demonstrated that in MEFs, IRS-2 also translocates to the nuclei of cells expressing the wild-type IGF-IR. For translocation of both IRS-1 and IRS-2, the TK domain of the IGF-IR is an absolute requirement. Mutations in the IGF-IR that abrogate the transforming activity, but not the mitogenic activity, of the IGF-IR result in decreased translocation, especially to the nucleoli. The nuclear IRS proteins interact with UBF1, a key regulator of rRNA synthesis, and decreased nucleolar localization correlates with decreased rRNA synthesis. These findings establish a link between nuclear IRS proteins and the regulation of rDNA transcription, with its implications in the regulation of cell growth in vivo and in vitro. It goes without saying that a possible role of IRS proteins in rRNA regulation does not exclude that the IRS proteins, in the cytosol or in the nucleus, may be also responsible for regulating the expression of RNA polymerase II-dependent genes.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
Cell Lines
A set of MEFs developed in our laboratory were used for these experiments. These cell lines were derived from R- cells, which are 3T3-like cells devoid of IGF-IR through a targeted disruption of the IGF-IR genes in mouse embryos (49). R-/T and R+ cells are two R- derived cell lines, stably expressing either the SV40 T antigen or the wild-type human IGF-IR cDNA, respectively. Also available were the following R- derived cell lines expressing various mutants of the IGF-IR: R-3Y (where the three tyrosines of the TK domain, 1131, 1135, and 1136, have been mutated), Y950F mutant (tyrosine 950 mutated to phenylalanine), {delta}1245 mutant (in which the receptor is truncated at residue 1245), and 4-ser mutant (in which the serine at 1280–1283 has been mutated). These cell lines have been described in detail in previous papers (9, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22). 32D cells, a murine hemopoietic cell line that does not express either IRS-1 or IRS-2 (17), were used as a negative control in some experiments. In some experiments, 32D IGF-IR/IRS-1, 32D IGF-IR, 32D-IGF-IR{delta}PH, and 32D IGF-IR/PHPTB cells were used for immunoprecipitation of the UBF, rRNA synthesis, and rDNA promoter activation. These cell lines have been described previously (5, 18, 26).

Immunofluorescence/Confocal Microscopy and Immunohistochemistry
Cells seeded at a density of 1 x 104 cells/ml were attached to glass coverslips at least overnight, and then shifted to serum-free medium for 48 h and stimulated with IGF-I (50 ng/ml) for 8 h. After fixation with 3% paraformaldehyde for 25 min and washing three times with PBS at room temperature, cells on coverslips were permeabilized with 0.2% Triton X-100 in PBS for 5 min, blocked with 10% normal donkey serum (sc-2044, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc., Santa Cruz, CA) for 20 min, and incubated for 1 h with the appropriate primary and secondary antibodies. Confocal analysis was carried out on a MRC-600 Ar/Kr laser scanning confocal microscope (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Hercules, CA) using a 40x objective (Carl Zeiss, Thornwood, NY). The immunostaining was processed by the use of the Histomouse (AEC) kit (Zymed Laboratories, Inc., South San Francisco, CA) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The magnifications for the figures presented were either x400 or x1000.

Subcellular Fractionation, Western Blotting, and Immunoprecipitation
Before stimulation with IGF-I, cells were serum starved for 48 h. The quiescent cells were stimulated with IGF-I (50 ng/ml) for 8 h. The cells were rinsed with cold PBS, detached with trypsin, and pelleted at 1500 rpm for 5 min at 4 C. The cells were then lysed in homogenization buffer [10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4; 15 mM NaCl; 60 mM KCl; 1 mM EDTA; 0.1 mM EGTA; 0.5% Nonidet P-40; 5% sucrose; and the protease mixture from Roche (Indianapolis, IN)] for 10 min, and then homogenized by 15 strokes in a tightly fitting Dounce homogenizer and examined under a microscope to ascertain that the majority of nuclei had been freed from the cytoplasm. The homogenate was centrifuged at 6000 rpm for 1 min to sediment the nuclei. The supernatant was then resedimented at 10,000 rpm for 10 min, and the resulting supernatant formed the cytoplasmic fraction. The nuclear pellet was passed through 5 ml sucrose buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4; 15 mM NaCl; 60 mM KCl; 10% sucrose), washed three times with wash buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4; 15 mM NaCl; 60 mM KCl), and resuspended in the lysis buffer containing 0.5 M NaCl to extract nuclear protein. The extract was centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 10 min at 4 C, and the supernatant was termed the "nuclear fraction." Cytoplasmic and nuclear fractions (50 µg) were separated on a 4–15% gradient gel (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.) and transferred to a nitrocellulose membrane. In one experiment, the proteins were separated on a 7.5% gel. For immunoprecipitation, 200 µg of nuclear or cytoplasmic lysate were incubated for 2 h at 4 C with the corresponding antibodies coupled to 20 µl of packed protein G-sepharose beads (Oncogene Science, Inc.). Immunocomplexes were resolved by means of SDS-PAGE and immunoblotted with the indicated antibodies.

Antibodies
The antibodies used in this study included: rabbit polyclonal anti-IRS-1 antibody (Upstate Biotechnology, Inc., Lake Placid, NY), rabbit polyclonal anti-IRS-1 antibody recognizing the N terminus of IRS-1 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc.), rabbit polyclonal anti-IRS-2 antibody antibody (Upstate Biotechnology, Inc.), goat polyclonal anti-IRS-2 antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc.), mouse monoclonal anti-SV 40 T antigen antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc.), mouse monoclonal antinucleolin antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc.), mouse monoclonal anti-Grb2 antibody (Transduction Laboratories, Inc., Lexington, KY), mouse monoclonal UBF antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc.), anti-C-jun polyclonal antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc.). Monoclonal anti-FLAG-fluorescein isothiocyanate conjugates and anti-FLAG-peroxidase conjugate were from Sigma (St. Louis, MO).

Metabolic Labeling of rRNA
R- derived cells were seeded at a density of 5 x 104 cells/ml in growth medium and eventually transferred to serum-free medium for 24 h. The cells were stimulated with 50 ng/ml of IGF-I (Life Technologies, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD) for the appropriate times. The cells were then labeled for 4 h with [32P]orthophosphate at a final concentration of 250 µCi/ml (ICN Biochemicals, Inc., Cleveland, OH) in phosphate-free medium (Life Technologies, Inc.). After labeling, the cells were washed and incubated in fresh medium for 2 h. Total RNA was isolated using RNeasy MiniKit (QIAGEN, Chatsworth, CA) and separated by electrophoresis on 1% agarose formaldehyde gels. After drying, the 32P-labeled rRNA was visualized by autoradiography. The bands also were counted in a liquid scintillation counter.

Activation of the rDNA Promoter
The activation of the rDNA promoter by IRS-1 was carried out by the transient transfection of the miniribosome gene described by Grummt and co-workers (23, 24, 25). It has almost 2000 residues before the starting site, a brief stretch of transcribed rDNA, and termination sequences. Just before the termination sequence, a unique in-frame viral sequence provides the specific sequence for Northern blots. The cells were transfected for 24 h, and the amount of transcribed miniribosome gene was determined by Northern blots and subsequent counting of the bands.

FLAG Tagging of Mutant IRS-1
The tagging of IRS-1 was described in detail by Prisco et al. (5) as well as the procedure for transfection and staining.


    FOOTNOTES
 
This work was supported by NIH Grants AG-16291 and CA-78890.

Abbreviations: IGF-IR, Insulin-like growth factor I receptor; IRS, insulin receptor substrate; MEFs, mouse embryonic fibroblasts; PH, pleckstrin homology; PTB, phosphotyrosine binding; rDNA, ribosomal DNA; 4-ser, 4-serine; SV40, Simian virus 40; TK, tyrosine kinase; UBF, upstream binding factor.

Received for publication August 7, 2002. Accepted for publication November 21, 2002.


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. White MF 1998 The IRS-signalling system: a network of docking proteins that mediate insulin action. Mol Cell Biochem 182:3–11[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Razzini G, Ingrosso A, Brancaccio A, Sciacchitano S, Esposito DL, Falasca M 2000 Different subcellular localization and phosphoinositides binding of insulin receptor substrate protein pleckstrin homology domain. Mol Endocrinol 14:823–836[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Jacobs AR, LeRoith D, Taylor SI 2001 Insulin receptor substrate-1 pleckstrin homology and phosphotyrosine-binding domains are both involved in plasma membrane targeting. J Biol Chem 276:40795–40802[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Lassak A, DelValle L, Peruzzi F, Wang JY, Enam S, Croul S, Khalili K, Reiss K 2002 Insulin receptor substrate-1 translocation to the nucleus by the human JC virus T antigen. J Biol Chem 277:17231–17238[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Prisco M, Santini F, Baffa R, Liu M, Drakas R, Wu A Baserga R 2002 Nuclear translocation of IRS-1 by the SV40 T antigen and the activated IGF-I receptor. J Biol Chem 277:32078–32085[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Tu X, Batta P, Innocent N, Prisco M, Casaburi I, Belletti B, Baserga R 2002 Nuclear translocation of insulin receptor substrate-1 by oncogenes and IGF-I: effect on ribosomal RNA synthesis. J Biol Chem 277:44357–44365[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Kabuta T, Hakuno F, Asano T, Takahashi S 2002 Insulin receptor substrate 3 functions as transcriptional activator in the nucleus. J Biol Chem 277:6846–6851[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Schnarr B, Strunz K, Ohsam J, Benner A, Wacker J, Mayer D 2000 Down regulation of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor and insulin receptor substrate-1 expression in advanced human breast cancer. Int J Cancer 89:506–513[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Zhou-Li F, D’Ambrosio C, Li S, Surmacz E, Baserga R 1995 Association of insulin receptor substrate 1 with Simian Virus 40 large T antigen. Mol Cell Biol 15:4232–4239[Abstract]
  10. Zhou-Li F, Xu S-Q, Dews M, Baserga R 1997 Co-operation of simian virus 40 T antigen and insulin receptor substrate-1 in protection from apoptosis induced by interleukin-3 withdrawal. Oncogene 15:961–970[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Yenush L, Zanella C, Uchida T, Bernal D, White MF 1998 The pleckstrin homology and phosphotyrosine binding domains of insulin receptor substrate 1 mediate inhibition of apoptosis by insulin. Mol Cell Biol 18:6784–6794[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Kuhn A, Grummt I 1992 Dual role of the nucleolar transcription factor UBF: trans-activator and antirepressor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89:7340–7344[Abstract]
  13. Cavanaugh AH, Hempel WM, Taylor LJ, Rogalsky V, Todorov G, Rothblum LI 1995 Activity of RNA polymerase I transcription factor UBF blocked by Rb gene product. Nature 374:177–180[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Grummt I 1999 Regulation of mammalian ribosomal gene transcription by RNA polymerase I. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol 62:109–153[Medline]
  15. Sell C, Rubini M, Rubin R, Liu J-P, Efstratiadis A, Baserga R 1993 Simian virus 40 large tumor antigen is unable to transform mouse embryonic fibroblasts lacking type-1 IGF receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:11217–11221[Abstract]
  16. Romano G, Prisco M, Zanocco-Marani T, Peruzzi F, Valentinis B, Baserga R 1999 Dissociation between resistance to apoptosis and the transformed phenotype in IGF-I receptor signaling. J Cell Biochem 72:294–310[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Wang LM, Myers Jr MG, Sun XJ, Aaronson SA, White M, Pierce JH 1993 IRS-1: essential for insulin- and IL-4-stimulated mitogenesis in hemopoietic cells. Science 261:1591–1594[Medline]
  18. Valentinis B, Romano G, Peruzzi F, Morrione A, Prisco M, Soddu S, Cristofanelli B, Sacchi A Baserga R 1999 Growth and differentiation signals by the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor in hemopoietic cells are mediated through different pathways. J Biol Chem 274:12423–12430[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Valentinis B, Morrione A, Taylor SJ, Baserga R 1997 Insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor signaling in transformation by src oncogenes. Mol Cell Biol 17:3744–3754[Abstract]
  20. Li S, Ferber A, Miura M, Baserga R 1994 Mitogenicity and transforming activity of the insulin-like growth factor I receptor with mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain. J Biol Chem 269:32558–32564[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Li S, Resnicoff M, Baserga R 1996 Effects of mutations at serines 1280–1283 on the mitogenic and transforming activities of the insulin-like growth factor I receptor. J Biol Chem 271:12254–12260[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Hongo A, D’Ambrosio C, Miura M, Morrione A, Baserga R 1996 Mutational analysis of the mitogenic and transforming activities of the insulin-like growth factor I receptor. Oncogene 12:1231–1238[Medline]
  23. Voit R, Schafer K, Grummt I 1997 Mechanism of repression of RNA polymerase I transcription by the retinoblastoma protein. Mol Cell Biol 17: 4230–4237
  24. Voit R, Kuhn A, Sander EE Grummt I 1995 Activation of mammalian ribosomal gene transcription requires phosphorylation of the nucleolar transcription factor UBF. Nucleic Acids Res 23:2593–2599[Abstract]
  25. Voit R, Grummt I 2001 Phosphorylation of UBF at serine 388 is required for interaction with RNA polymerase I and activation of rDNA transcription. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:13631–13636[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Valentinis B, Navarro M, Zanocco-Marani T, Edmonds P, McCormick J, Morrione A, Sacchi A, Romano G, Reiss K, Baserga R 2000 Insulin receptor substrate-1, p70S6K and cell size in transformation and differentiation of hemopoietic cells. J Biol Chem 275:25451–25459[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Jorgensen P, Nishikawa JL, Breitkreutz BJ, Tyers M 2002 Systematic identification of pathways that couple cell growth and division in yeast. Science 297:395–400[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Peruzzi F, Prisco M, Dews M, Salomoni P, Grassilli E, Romano G, Calabretta B, Baserga R 1999 Multiple signaling pathways of the IGF-I receptor in protection from apoptosis. Mol Cell Biol 19:7203–7215[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Navarro M, Baserga R 2001 Limited redundancy of survival signals from the type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor. Endocrinology 142:1073–1081[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Navarro M, Valentinis B, Belletti B, Romano G, Reiss K, Baserga R 2001 Regulation of Id2 gene expression by the type 1 IGF receptor and the insulin receptor substrate-1. Endocrinology 142:5149–5157[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Stefanovsky VV, Pelletier G, Hannan R, Gagnon-Kugler T, Rothblum LI, Moss T 2001 An immediate response of ribosomal transcription to growth factor stimulation in mammals is mediated by ERK phosphorylation of UBF. Mol Cell 8:1063–1073[Medline]
  32. Cristofanelli B, Valentinis B, Soddu S, Rizzo MG, Marchetti A, Bossi G, Morena AR, Dews M, Baserga R, Sacchi A 2000 Co-operative transformation of 32D cells by the combined expression of IRS-1 and v-Ha-Ras. Oncogene 19:3245–3255[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Gaub J, Auer G, Zetterberg A 1975 Quantitative cytochemical aspects of a combined Feulgen naphthol yellow S staining procedure for the simultaneous determination of nuclear and cytoplasmic proteins and DNA in mammalian cells. Exp Cell Res 92:323–332[Medline]
  34. Hannan KM, Hannan RD, Smith SD, Jefferson LS, Lun M, Rothblum LI 2000 Rb and p130 regulate RNA polymerase I transcription: Rb disrupts the interaction between UBF and SL-1. Oncogene 19:4988–4999[CrossRef][Medline]
  35. Baxter GC, Stanners CP 1978 The effect of protein degradation on cellular growth characteristics. J Cell Physiol 96:139–146[Medline]
  36. Cohen LS, Studzinski GP 1967 Correlation between cell enlargement and nucleic acid and protein content of HeLa cells in unbalanced growth produced by inhibitors of DNA synthesis. J Cell Physiol 69:331–340[Medline]
  37. Moss T and Stefanovsky VY 1995 Promotion and regulation of ribosomal transcription in eukaryotes by RNA polymerase I. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol 50:25–66[Medline]
  38. Reeder RH 1999 Regulation of RNA polymerase transcription in yeast and vertebrates. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol 62:293–327[Medline]
  39. Larson DE, Xie WQ, Glibetic M, O’Mahony D, Sells BH, Rothblum LI 1993 Coordinated decrease in rRNA gene transcription factors and rRNA synthesis during muscle differentiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:7933–7936[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Bohni R, Riesco-Escovar J, Oldham S, Brogiolo W, Stocker H, Andruss BF, Beckingham K, Hafen E 1999 Autonomous control of cell and organ size by CHICO, a Drosophila homolog of vertebrate IRS-1. Cell 97:865–875[Medline]
  41. Montagne J, Stewart MJ, Stocker H, Hafen E, Kozma SC, Thomas G 1999 Drosophila 6 kinase: a regulator of cell size. Science 285:2126–2129[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Verdu J, Buratovich MA, Wilder EL, Birnbaum MJ 1999 Cell-autonomous regulation of cell and organ growth in Drosophila by Akt/PKB. Nat Cell Biol 1:500–506[CrossRef][Medline]
  43. Pete G, Fuller GR, Oldham JM, Smith DR, D’Ercole AJ, Kahn CR, Lund PK 1999 Postnatal growth responses to insulin-like growth factor 1 in insulin receptor substrate-1 mice. Endocrinology 140:5478–5487[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Shima H, Pende M, Chen Y, Fumagalli S, Thomas G, Kozma SC 1998 Disruption of the p70S6K/p85S6K gene reveals a small mouse phenotype and a new functional S6 kinase. EMBO J 17:6649–6659[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Efstratiadis A 1998 Genetics of mouse growth. Int J Dev Biol 42:955–976[Medline]
  46. Burks DJ, Wang J, Towery H, Ishibashi O, Lowe D, Riedel H, White MF 1998 IRS pleckstrin homology domains bind to acidic motifs in proteins. J Biol Chem 273:31061–31067[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Dhe-Paganon S, Ottinger EA, Nolte RT, Eck MJ, Shoelson SE 1999 Crystal structure of the pleckstrin homology-phosphotyrosine binding (PH-PTB) targeting region of the insulin receptor substrate-1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:8378–8383[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Yang Y, Chen Y, Zhang C, Huang H, Weissman SM 2002 Nucleolar localization of hTERT protein is associated with telomerase function. Exp Cell Res 277:201–209[CrossRef][Medline]
  49. Liu J-P, Baker J, Perkins AS, Robertson EJ, Efstratiadis A 1993 Mice carrying null mutations of the genes encoding insulin-like growth factor I (igf-1) and type 1 IGF receptor (Igf1r). Cell 75:59–72[Medline]