Integrin α6Bβ4 inhibits colon cancer cell proliferation and c-Myc activity

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Integrins are known to be important contributors to cancer progression. We have previously shown that the integrin β4 subunit is up-regulated in primary colon cancer. Its partner, the integrin α6 subunit, exists as two different mRNA splice variants, α6A and α6B, that differ in their cytoplasmic domains but evidence for distinct biological functions of these α6 splice variants is still lacking.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this work, we first analyzed the expression of integrin α6A and α6B at the protein and transcript levels in normal human colonic cells as well as colorectal adenocarcinoma cells from both primary tumors and established cell lines. Then, using forced expression experiments, we investigated the effect of α6A and α6B on the regulation of cell proliferation in a colon cancer cell line.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Using variant-specific antibodies, we observed that α6A and α6B are differentially expressed both within the normal adult colonic epithelium and between normal and diseased colonic tissues. Proliferative cells located in the lower half of the glands were found to predominantly express α6A, while the differentiated and quiescent colonocytes in the upper half of the glands and surface epithelium expressed α6B. A relative decrease of α6B expression was also identified in primary colon tumors and adenocarcinoma cell lines suggesting that the α6A/α6B ratios may be linked to the proliferative status of colonic cells. Additional studies in colon cancer cells showed that experimentally restoring the α6A/α6B balance in favor of α6B caused a decrease in cellular S-phase entry and repressed the activity of c-Myc.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The findings that the α6Bβ4 integrin is expressed in quiescent normal colonic cells and is significantly down-regulated in colon cancer cells relative to its α6Aβ4 counterpart are consistent with the anti-proliferative influence and inhibitory effect on c-Myc activity identified for this α6Bβ4 integrin. Taken together, these findings point out the importance of integrin variant expression in colon cancer cell biology.</p

Abnormal Wnt and PI3Kinase Signaling in the Malformed Intestine of lama5 Deficient Mice

Laminins are major constituents of basement membranes and are essential for tissue homeostasis. Laminin-511 is highly expressed in the intestine and its absence causes severe malformation of the intestine and embryonic lethality. To understand the mechanistic role of laminin-511 in tissue homeostasis, we used RNA profiling of embryonic intestinal tissue of lama5 knockout mice and identified a lama5 specific gene expression signature. By combining cell culture experiments with mediated knockdown approaches, we provide a mechanistic link between laminin α5 gene deficiency and the physiological phenotype. We show that laminin α5 plays a crucial role in both epithelial and mesenchymal cell behavior by inhibiting Wnt and activating PI3K signaling. We conclude that conflicting signals are elicited in the absence of lama5, which alter cell adhesion, migration as well as epithelial and muscle differentiation. Conversely, adhesion to laminin-511 may serve as a potent regulator of known interconnected PI3K/Akt and Wnt signaling pathways. Thus deregulated adhesion to laminin-511 may be instrumental in diseases such as human pathologies of the gut where laminin-511 is abnormally expressed as it is shown here

Scientific Representations as Limiting Cases

In this essay, I shall show that the so-called inferential (Suárez 2003 and 2004) and interpretational (Contessa 2007) accounts of scientific representation are respectively unsatisfactory and too weak to account for scientific representation (pars destruens). Along the way, I shall also argue that the pragmatic similarity (Giere 2004 and Giere 2010) and the partial isomorphism (da Costa and French 2003 and French 2003) accounts are unable to single out scientific representation. In the pars construens I spell out a limiting case account which has explanatory surplus vis à vis the approaches which I have previously reviewed. My account offers an adequate treatment of scientific representation, or so I shall try to argue. Central to my account is the notion of a pragmatic limiting case, which will be characterized in due course