4.5 Article

Claudin-4 is required for modulation of paracellular permeability by muscarinic acetylcholine receptor in epithelial cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELL SCIENCE
卷 128, 期 12, 页码 2271-2286

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jcs.165878

关键词

Tight junction; Claudin-4; Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor; Paracellular permeability

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81300893, 81271161, 81470756]
  2. Peking-Tsinghua Center for Life Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The epithelial cholinergic system plays an important role in water, ion and solute transport. Previous studies have shown that activation of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (mAChRs) regulates paracellular transport of epithelial cells; however, the underlying mechanism is still largely unknown. Here, we found that mAChR activation by carbachol and cevimeline reduced the transepithelial electrical resistance (TER) and increased the permeability of paracellular tracers in rat salivary epithelial SMG-C6 cells. Carbachol induced downregulation and redistribution of claudin-4, but not occludin or ZO-1 (also known as TJP1). Small hairpin RNA (shRNA)-mediated claudin-4 knockdown suppressed, whereas claudin-4 overexpression retained, the TER response to carbachol. Mechanistically, the mAChR-modulated claudin-4 properties and paracellular permeability were triggered by claudin-4 phosphorylation through ERK1/2 (also known as MAPK3 and MAPK1, respectively). Mutagenesis assay demonstrated that S195, but not S199, S203 or S207, of claudin-4, was the target for carbachol. Subsequently, the phosphorylated claudin-4 interacted with beta-arrestin2 and triggered claudin-4 internalization through the clathrin-dependent pathway. The internalized claudin-4 was further degraded by ubiquitylation. Taken together, these findings suggested that claudin-4 is required for mAChR-modulated paracellular permeability of epithelial cells through an ERK1/2, beta-arrestin2, clathrin and ubiquitin-dependent signaling pathway.

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

4.5
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