4.7 Article

Polyamines, PI(4,5)P2, and actin polymerization

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR PHYSIOLOGY
卷 209, 期 2, 页码 405-412

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/jcp.20729

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL 137498] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spermine (SPM) and spermidine (SPD) activate isolated phosphatidylinositol-4-phosphate 5-kinases (PI(4)P5K), enzymes that convert phosphatidylinositol-4-phosphate to phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate (PI(4,5)P-2). PI(4,5)P-2 formation is known to be involved in cellular actin reorganization and motility, functions that are also influenced by polyamines. It has not been proven that endogenous polyamines can control inositol phospholipid metabolism. We evoked large decreases in SPD and putrescine (PUT) contents in HL60 cells, using the ornithine decarboxylase inhibitor, alpha-difluoromethylornithine (DFMO), which resulted in decreases in PI(4,5)P-2 content per cell and inositol phosphate formation to 76.9 +/- 3.5% and 81.5 +/- 4.0% of control, respectively. Accurately reversing DFMO-evoked decreases in SPD content by incubating cells with exogenous SPD for 20 min rescued these decreases. DFMO treatment and SPD rescues also changed the ratio of total cellular PI(4,5)P-2 to PIP suggesting involvement of a SPD-sensitive PI(4)P5K. PUT and SPM were not involved in DFMO-evoked changes in cellular PI(4,5)P-2 contents. In DFMO-treated HL60 cells, the percent of total actin content that was filamentous was decreased to 59.1 +/- 5.8% of that measured in paired control HL60 cells, a finding that was rescued following reversal of DFMO-evoked decreases in SPD and PI(4,5)P-2 contents. In slowly proliferating DMSO-differentiated HL60 cells, inositol phospholipid metabolism was uncoupled from SPD control. We conclude: in rapidly proliferating HL60 cells, but not in slowly proliferating differentiated HL60 cells, there are endogenous SPD-sensitive PI(4,5)P-2 pools, probably formed via SPD-sensitive PI(4)P5K, that likely control actin polymerization.

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