4.4 Article

Mammalian target of rapamycin and Rictor control neutrophil chemotaxis by regulating Rac/Cdc42 activity and the actin cytoskeleton

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF THE CELL
卷 24, 期 21, 页码 3369-3380

出版社

AMER SOC CELL BIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1091/mbc.E13-07-0405

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health Grants [GM083812, GM083601, HD059002, AR048914, GM089771]
  2. National Science Foundation CAREER Award [0953267]
  3. National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center Emergent Behaviors of Integrated Cellular Systems [CBET-0939511]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chemotaxis allows neutrophils to seek out sites of infection and inflammation. The asymmetric accumulation of filamentous actin (F-actin) at the leading edge provides the driving force for protrusion and is essential for the development and maintenance of neutrophil polarity. The mechanism that governs actin cytoskeleton dynamics and assembly in neutrophils has been extensively explored and is still not fully understood. By using neutrophil-like HL-60 cells, we describe a pivotal role for Rictor, a component of mammalian target of rapamycin complex 2 (mTORC2), in regulating assembly of the actin cytoskeleton during neutrophil chemotaxis. Depletion of mTOR and Rictor, but not Raptor, impairs actin polymerization, leading-edge establishment, and directional migration in neutrophils stimulated with chemoattractants. Of interest, depletion of mSin1, an integral component of mTORC2, causes no detectable defects in neutrophil polarity and chemotaxis. In addition, experiments with chemical inhibition and kinase-dead mutants indicate that mTOR kinase activity and AKT phosphorylation are dispensable for chemotaxis. Instead, our results suggest that the small Rho GTPases Rac and Cdc42 serve as downstream effectors of Rictor to regulate actin assembly and organization in neutrophils. Together our findings reveal an mTORC2- and mTOR kinase-independent function and mechanism of Rictor in the regulation of neutrophil chemotaxis.

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

4.4
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