Cargando…
Energy landscape differences among integrins establish the framework for understanding activation
Why do integrins differ in basal activity, and how does affinity for soluble ligand correlate with cellular adhesiveness? We show that basal conformational equilibrium set points for integrin α(4)β(1) are cell type specific and differ from integrin α(5)β(1) when the two integrins are coexpressed on...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Rockefeller University Press
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5748972/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29122968 http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201701169 |
_version_ | 1783289502683365376 |
---|---|
author | Li, Jing Springer, Timothy A. |
author_facet | Li, Jing Springer, Timothy A. |
author_sort | Li, Jing |
collection | PubMed |
description | Why do integrins differ in basal activity, and how does affinity for soluble ligand correlate with cellular adhesiveness? We show that basal conformational equilibrium set points for integrin α(4)β(1) are cell type specific and differ from integrin α(5)β(1) when the two integrins are coexpressed on the same cell. Although α(4)β(1) is easier to activate, its high-affinity state binds vascular cell adhesion molecule and fibronectin 100- to 1,000-fold more weakly than α(5)β(1) binds fibronectin. Furthermore, the difference in affinity between the high- and low-affinity states is more compressed in α(4)β(1) (600- to 800-fold) than in α(5)β(1) (4,000- to 6,000-fold). α(4)β(1) basal conformational equilibria differ among three cell types, define affinity for soluble ligand and readiness for priming, and may reflect differences in interactions with intracellular adaptors but do not predict cellular adhesiveness for immobilized ligand. The measurements here provide a necessary framework for understanding integrin activation in intact cells, including activation of integrin adhesiveness by application of tensile force by the cytoskeleton, across ligand–integrin–adaptor complexes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5748972 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | The Rockefeller University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57489722018-07-02 Energy landscape differences among integrins establish the framework for understanding activation Li, Jing Springer, Timothy A. J Cell Biol Research Articles Why do integrins differ in basal activity, and how does affinity for soluble ligand correlate with cellular adhesiveness? We show that basal conformational equilibrium set points for integrin α(4)β(1) are cell type specific and differ from integrin α(5)β(1) when the two integrins are coexpressed on the same cell. Although α(4)β(1) is easier to activate, its high-affinity state binds vascular cell adhesion molecule and fibronectin 100- to 1,000-fold more weakly than α(5)β(1) binds fibronectin. Furthermore, the difference in affinity between the high- and low-affinity states is more compressed in α(4)β(1) (600- to 800-fold) than in α(5)β(1) (4,000- to 6,000-fold). α(4)β(1) basal conformational equilibria differ among three cell types, define affinity for soluble ligand and readiness for priming, and may reflect differences in interactions with intracellular adaptors but do not predict cellular adhesiveness for immobilized ligand. The measurements here provide a necessary framework for understanding integrin activation in intact cells, including activation of integrin adhesiveness by application of tensile force by the cytoskeleton, across ligand–integrin–adaptor complexes. The Rockefeller University Press 2018-01-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5748972/ /pubmed/29122968 http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201701169 Text en This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Foreign copyrights may apply. http://www.rupress.org/terms/https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike–No Mirror Sites license for the first six months after the publication date (see http://www.rupress.org/terms/). After six months it is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 4.0 International license, as described at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Research Articles Li, Jing Springer, Timothy A. Energy landscape differences among integrins establish the framework for understanding activation |
title | Energy landscape differences among integrins establish the framework for understanding activation |
title_full | Energy landscape differences among integrins establish the framework for understanding activation |
title_fullStr | Energy landscape differences among integrins establish the framework for understanding activation |
title_full_unstemmed | Energy landscape differences among integrins establish the framework for understanding activation |
title_short | Energy landscape differences among integrins establish the framework for understanding activation |
title_sort | energy landscape differences among integrins establish the framework for understanding activation |
topic | Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5748972/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29122968 http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201701169 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lijing energylandscapedifferencesamongintegrinsestablishtheframeworkforunderstandingactivation AT springertimothya energylandscapedifferencesamongintegrinsestablishtheframeworkforunderstandingactivation |