4.7 Article

Calpain-Mediated N-Cadherin Proteolytic Processing in Brain Injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 29, 期 18, 页码 5974-5984

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6178-08.2009

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Medical Sciences, Graduate School, Ajou University
  2. Korea Science and Engineering Foundation through Chronic Inflammatory Disease Research Center [KOSEF R-13-2003-019-01005-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neural-cadherin (N-cadherin), a member of the classical cadherin family of transmembrane glycoproteins, mediates cellular recognition and cell-cell adhesion through calcium-dependent homophilic interactions and plays important roles in the development and maintenance of the nervous system. Metalloproteinase is known to cleave N-cadherin, which is further cleaved by gamma-secretase. The intracellular domain of N-cadherin interacts with beta-catenin, and beta-catenin stability is critical for cell-cell adhesion and cell survival. In the present study, we showed that N-cadherin is cleaved specifically by calpain, resulting in the generation of a novel 110 kDa fragment. The cleavage occurred in ischemic brain lesions and in vitro neural cells in the presence of NMDA and ionomycin, and was restored by calpain inhibitors but not matrix metalloproteinase or gamma-secretase inhibitors. Calpain directly cleaved N-cadherin in in vitro calpain assays, and calpain inhibitors prevented its cleavage in a dose-dependent manner. Using N-cadherin deletion mutants, we found that calpain cleavage sites exist in at least four regions of the cytoplasmic domain. Treatment with NMDA induced neuronal death, and it suppressed the expression of surface N-cadherin and the N-cadherin/beta-catenin interaction, effects that were prevented by calpain inhibitor. Furthermore, calpain-mediated N-cadherin cleavage significantly affected cell-cell adhesion, AKT signaling, the N-cadherin/beta-catenin interaction and the Wnt target gene expressions through the accumulation of nuclear beta-catenin.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据