| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Department of Medicine (J.J., X.W., S.J.F.), Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Department of Cell Biology (K.H., S.J.F.), Department of Pathology (X.L.), University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama 35294-0012; School of Biomedical Sciences and Institute for Molecular Bioscience (C.C.), University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Department of Physiology and Functional Genomics (P.P.S.), University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida 32610; and Endocrinology Section (S.J.F.), Medical Service, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, Alabama 35233
Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Stuart J. Frank, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1530 3rd Avenue South, BDB 861, Birmingham, Alabama 35294-0012. E-mail: sjfrank{at}uab.edu.
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Unlike the situation in the presence of GH, very little information exists about the structure of the unliganded GHR, and until recently it was believed that the receptor exists as a monomer before GH exposure. However, Gent et al. (7) used coimmunoprecipitation to demonstrate that GHR dimerization can be observed even in the absence of GH, suggesting that GH induces a conformational change in the receptor dimer, rather than dimerization per se, to cause receptor activation. The nature of this conformational change remains obscure but may involve approximation of dimerization interface residues in subdomain 2 and/or other more distal stem region residues (238246) within this subdomain (8).
We previously reported initial characterization of a monoclonal anti-GHR antibody, designated anti-GHRext-mAb, raised against a bacterially expressed GST fusion protein incorporating the entire ECD of the rabbit (rb) GHR (9). This antibody cross-reacts with the human (h) GHR and displayed conformational sensitivity in its interaction with the receptor. Immunoprecipitation of cellular GHRs was dose-dependently inhibited by GH treatment before extraction of cellular proteins. Treatment with a GH antagonist that binds the receptor via its GH site 1, but fails to activate receptor signaling, did not prevent anti-GHRext-mAb immunoprecipitation; however, the antagonist reversed the inhibitory effect of GH on anti-GHRext-mAb immunoprecipitation, suggesting that anti-GHRext-mAb was not simply competing for the GH binding sites on the receptor (or at least the GHR sites involved in interaction with GH site 1). Thus, loss of anti-GHRext-mAb immunoprecipitability correlated with GH-induced attainment of a GHR conformation competent for signaling and could be used along with GH-induced GHR disulfide linkage as biochemical markers of conformational changes in the receptor (9, 10).
In this report, we further characterized anti-GHRext-mAb, determining that its epitope(s) is contained with subdomain 2, but not subdomain 1, of the rbGHR and that it can interact with the receptor on the surface of intact cells. We also tested the effects of anti-GHRext-mAb on GHR signaling and on regulated GHR proteolysis. Our results suggest that this antibodys conformational sensitivity rests with its ability to interact with an intact dimerization interface within the receptor and emphasize the importance of that receptor region for attainment of the proper signaling conformation. Our results also suggest that regulated GHR proteolysis, which is mediated by metalloprotease activity and alters cellular sensitivity to GH (11, 12, 13, 14, 15), is influenced by anti-GHRext-mAb binding, even though the proteolytic site is not an epitope for the antibody. Furthermore, a Fab fragment of anti-GHRext-mAb retains these characteristics regarding GHR signaling and proteolysis. Collectively, these data indicate that anti-GHRext-mAb has promise as a GH antagonist and as a tool in studies of GH-induced receptor conformational changes.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
2A-rbGHR/Janus kinase (JAK) 2 (herein referred to as C14), that expresses rbGHR and responds to GH with GHR, JAK2, and signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) 5 tyrosine phosphorylation and activation (16). We initially used this cell line to test the capacity of anti-GHRext-mAb to recognize the cell surface GHR by immunoprecipitation in two types of experiments (Fig. 1
|
Although the total GHR abundance was unchanged in Fig. 1C
after 15 min GH treatment at 37 C, it is conceivable that ligand-induced internalization caused some clearing of surface GHR under those conditions and thereby could account for some of the loss of surface immunoreaction by anti-GHRext-mAb. To pursue this further, we sought conditions of stimulation that might allow GH engagement of the GHR but prevent significant internalization. We previously demonstrated (19) that GH treatment for a more prolonged period at 4 C (a temperature at which internalization is essentially blocked) allows GH binding and, although less than at 37 C, a degree of GH-induced GHR disulfide linkage. GHR disulfide linkage, although not necessary for receptor activation, reflects GH-induced receptor conformational changes associated with productive engagement (9, 10). In the experiment shown in Fig. 1D
, serum-starved C14 cells were treated with (+) or without () GH for 90 min at 4 C. After this period, the cells were washed and reincubated with anti-GHRext-mAb (lanes 1 and 2) for 45 min at 4 C. After washing off unbound antibodies, cells were detergent solubilized and protein G-Sepharose was added to the lysate to precipitate the antibodies. Eluted proteins were resolved by SDS-PAGE and immunoblotted with anti-GHRcyt-AL47. As a control, aliquots of the cell extracts were resolved without immunoprecipitation and anti-GHRcyt-AL47 immunoblotted (lanes 3 and 4). This revealed that in cells treated with GH, anti-GHRext-mAb immunoreaction was again substantially reduced (lane 2 vs. 1), despite a lack of difference in total GHR abundance (lane 4 vs. 3). The same cell extracts were also resolved under nonreducing conditions (lanes 5 and 6), confirming that GH did indeed induce the appearance of the high-Mr disulfide-linked (dsl) form of the GHR under these conditions. Collectively, the findings in Fig. 1
indicate that anti-GHRext-mAb recognizes cell surface GHRs but loses its ability to immunoreact with the surface receptor when it is engaged by GH.
Anti-GHRext-mAb was raised against a fusion protein that includes GST linked to the entire rbGHR ECD (diagrammed in Fig. 2A
). This domain is comprised of two nearly equally sized regions referred to as subdomains 1 and 2, which are connected by a short hinge region. Because these subdomains form separate moieties within the receptor protein (4), we sought to determine whether anti-GHRext-mAb recognized either one preferentially. We constructed and bacterially expressed fusion proteins encoding receptor residues 1128 (GST/GHR1128) and 129246 (GST/GHR129246) for comparison with GST/GHR1246, the immunogen for anti-GHRext-mAb. The fusions were designed to respect the boundaries of the subdomains, as defined from the hGHR ECD crystal structure (4), so as to maximize the likelihood that these proteins would maintain stability.
|
We attempted to further define one or more regions within subdomain 2 that might harbor an epitope for anti-GHRext-mAb by creating three fusion proteins to subdivide the subdomain. Subdomain 2 has seven ß sandwich strands, designated A, B, C, C', E, F, and G, connected to each other by loops. In the crystal structure of the receptor, it is evident that these strands organize themselves such that together they form a sandwich with two antiparallel ß sheets, one with three strands (A, B, and E) and the other with four strands (C, C', F, and G) (4). It is apparent that any division of the subdomain into fragments that by necessity include linear stretches of residues could not recreate these sheets (as strand E is between strands C' and F in the linear sequence). Nonetheless, we constructed fusion proteins so as to respect the boundaries of strands and loops. The three GST fusions are diagrammed in Fig. 2C
and included GHR residues 128169 (the A strand, A-B loop, B strand, and B-C loop), 169202 (the C strand, C-C' loop, C' strand, C'-E loop, and E strand), and 202246 (the E-F loop, F strand, F-G loop, G strand, and juxtamembrane stem). Each was tested for its detectability by blotting and precipitation by anti-GHRext-mAb (Fig. 2
, D and E) in the same fashion as were the subdomain 1- and subdomain 2-containing fusions in Fig. 2B
. The three fusions were similarly well detected by anti-GST blotting at their expected Mr (Fig. 2D
, lanes 24), indicating that each was stable in the bacterial expression system. Although equally well detected by anti-GST blotting as was GST/GHR129246, none of the three fusions (GST/GHR128169, GST/GHR169202, or GST/GHR202246) were detectable compared with GST/GHR129246 by anti-GHRext-mAb when all fusions were loaded in similar abundance on the gel (Fig. 2D
), showing that reactivity was disrupted by further subdivision of the subdomain. This conclusion was further bolstered by the finding that two other fusions, GST/GHR128202 and GST/GHR169246, were also well detected by anti-GST, but not detected by anti-GHRext-mAb (data not shown).
Unlike the remainder of the ECD, little structural information is available about the GHR stem region (residues 238246), which lies at the C terminus of subdomain 2 (4). This region links the ß-sheets of the subdomain to the transmembrane portion of the receptor and harbors a site for regulated metalloprotease-mediated GHR cleavage that yields the shed receptor ECD (the GH binding protein; GHBP) (11, 12, 13, 14, 15). Because subdomain 2, which includes the stem region, reacts with anti-GHRext-mAb, we tested whether GHR mutants disrupted in the stem region could be recognized by the antibody by immunoprecipitation (Fig. 2E
). We previously characterized several rabbit receptor mutants with internal deletions of three residues each within the stem region (15). These were referred to as
237239,
240242, and
242244 to indicate the deleted residues; in each case, GHR cell surface presentation, GH binding, and GH-induced signaling were intact for each mutant, but each was defective in undergoing phorbol ester-induced proteolysis (15). (Each of these mutants was in the backbone of the rbGHRdel 297406 mutant, designated wild type (WT)', which also has an internal deletion in the cytoplasmic domain that renders it defective in internalization.). Each mutant and the WT' receptor were expressed in
2A-JAK2 cells. This cell line was derived from the same parental cell (
2A) as was C14 (20); although it also stably expresses JAK2,
2A-JAK2, in contrast to C14, expresses no GHR and is thus a convenient cell in which to compare transiently transfected GHR mutants. Aliquots of detergent extract from each transfected population were immunoprecipitated with anti-GHRext-mAb or resolved without immunoprecipitation and immunoblotted with anti-GHRcyt-AL47. Each receptor was found to be precipitated in proportion to its expression level (compare lanes 14 vs. 69). As a negative control, the WT' receptor was not detected in immunoprecipitates in which no antibody was added (lane 5 vs. 10). Thus, none of the mutations in the stem region of the rbGHR ECD prevented recognition of the receptor by anti-GHRext-mAb, leading us to conclude that an intact stem region does not contribute substantially to the epitope recognized by this antibody.
Anti-GHRext-mAb Does Not Recognize a Signaling-Defective GHR Dimerization Interface Mutant
The so-called dimerization interface in the GHR ECD is an extensive region that includes six interspersed intermolecular bonds between the two receptors within the GH-bound complex. These are serine-145/aspartic acid-152, leucine-146/serine-201, threonine-147/aspartic acid-152, histidine-150/asparagine-143, aspartic acid-152/tyrosine-200, serine-201/tyrosine-200 (4). Together, this interface occupies 500 Å2, as compared with roughly 1230 Å2 and 900 Å2 for the site 1-GHR and site 2-GHR interactions, respectively; thus, it is important for the overall stability of the assemblage. In a previous study, rbGHR mutants with changes in these residues were shown not to disrupt GH binding; however, some mutants were found to be unable to mediate GH-induced transcriptional signaling when stably expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells (21).
We examined the impact of the dimerization interface on the ability of anti-GHRext-mAb to detect the receptor by studying two GHR mutants, rbGHR-H150D and rbGHR-T147K (21). rbGHR-H150D is a point mutation of histidine-150 to aspartate and rbGHR-T147K changes threonine-147 to lysine. Both residues 147 and 150 are known to be part of the dimerization interface, but mutation of residue 150 severely impairs GH-induced transcriptional signaling, whereas mutation of residue 147 is only marginally detrimental (21). We first tested the ability of these two mutant receptors to undergo acute GH-induced tyrosine phosphorylation when transiently expressed in COS-7 cells in comparison to the WT rbGHR (Fig. 3
). COS-7 cells were cotransfected with plasmids encoding JAK2 and either the WT or mutant GHR and serum-starved cells were treated with (+) or without () GH for 15 min before detergent extraction. The extracts were immunoprecipitated with anti-GHRcyt-mAb and immunoblotted sequentially with anti-pTyr and anti-GHRcyt-AL37, as indicated (Fig. 3A
, upper and lower panels, respectively). GH treatment resulted in tyrosine phosphorylation of the receptor in cells in which WT rbGHR was expressed (Fig. 3A
, upper panel, lane 2 vs. 1), consistent with our previous observations (9, 22, 23, 24). Similarly, expression of rbGHR-T147K also allowed GH-induced GHR tyrosine phosphorylation (upper panel, lane 4 vs. 3), although to a lesser degree than that seen for WT rbGHR. In contrast, GH failed to induce receptor tyrosine phosphorylation in cells expressing rbGHR-H150D (upper panel, lane 6 vs. 5). Although rbGHR-T147K expression was somewhat less than that of WT rbGHR (possibly contributing to its somewhat diminished level of GH-induced tyrosine phosphorylation), it is clear that rbGHR-H150D tyrosine phosphorylation was undetectable despite its ample expression (lower panel, lanes 16).
|
The two dimerization interface mutants were next compared with WT for their ability to be immunoprecipitated by anti-GHRext-mAb (Fig. 3C
). Serum-starved COS-7 cells expressing WT, rbGHR-T147K, or rbGHR-H150D were harvested and detergent solubilized. Portions of the extracts were immunoprecipitated with either anti-GHRext-mAb or anti-GHRcyt-mAb and eluates of these precipitates were resolved by SDS-PAGE. Immunoblotting with anti-GHRcyt-AL47 revealed that both mutants were expressed and detected by anti-GHRcyt-AL47 after anti-GHRcyt-mAb precipitation (Fig. 3C
, lanes 46). However, only WT and rbGHR-T147K, but not rbGHR-H150D, were precipitated by anti-GHRext-mAb (Fig. 3C
, lanes 1 and 2 vs. 3). Thus, the dimerization interface mutation that rendered rbGHR-H150D unable to undergo conformational change and stimulate JAK2-mediated GHR tyrosine phosphorylation in response to GH also impaired the ability of this mutant to be recognized by anti-GHRext-mAb, even in the absence of GH stimulation. We note that, although detected by anti-GHRext-mAb, rbGHR-T147K was less well recognized than was WT. We do not yet completely understand this difference, but it may indicate that this mutation renders the dimerization interface less intact than WT, but clearly not as disrupted as does mutation of residue 150. Collectively, these data, along with the mapping data in Fig. 2
, indicate that the receptor dimerization interface forms the epitope for anti-GHRext-mAb or is required for another region of subdomain 2 to form the antibodys epitope.
Anti-GHRext-mAb Inhibits GH-Induced Signaling
The data in Figs. 13![]()
![]()
support the view that anti-GHRext-mAb specifically recognizes the cell surface rbGHR in a conformationally sensitive manner that depends on the integrity of the dimerization interface within subdomain 2 of the ECD. Given the likely importance of GH-induced conformational changes within this interface for GH signal transduction, we investigated the effects of treatment of intact cells with anti-GHRext-mAb on GH-induced activation of intracellular signaling pathways (Fig. 4
). Serum-starved C14 cells were pretreated with varying concentrations of anti-GHRext-mAb for 15 min at 37 C before treatment with GH for a further 15 min. Cells were then solubilized and proteins resolved by SDS-PAGE and immunoblotted with anti-pTyr-JAK2 (Fig. 5A
, upper panel). This antibody recognizes phosphorylated tyrosine residues in the JAK2 kinase activation loop and the immunoblot signal thereby reflects the degree of JAK2 activation. As expected, GH treatment without prior exposure to anti-GHRext-mAb resulted in substantial JAK2 activation (lane 2 vs. 1). Pretreatment with anti-GHRext-mAb, however, markedly inhibited GH-induced JAK2 activation (lanes 35 vs. 2). Notably, pretreatment with anti-GHRcyt-mAb, at a concentration comparable to the highest concentration of anti-GHRext-mAb, failed to inhibit GH-induced JAK2 phosphorylation (lane 6 vs. 2). This is an important control for nonspecific effects of monoclonal antibody addition to the intact cells. The level of total JAK2 did not vary among the samples (not shown). Thus, the conformationally sensitive antibody could block the effect of GH on JAK2 activation. In other experiments (not shown), addition of anti-GHRext-mAb alone over a range of concentrations did not cause activation of JAK2 in this same assay.
|
|
In principle, however, the inhibition of GH-induced GHR disulfide linkage, JAK2 activation, and STAT5 tyrosine phosphorylation by anti-GHRext-mAb might be related to inhibition of GH binding to the GHR. Our previous results indicated that the GH-induced loss of anti-GHRext-mAb immunoprecipitation of the GHR was not mimicked by the GH antagonist, G120K, which binds the GHR, but fails to induce the receptor conformational changes required for signaling (9). This led us to conclude that anti-GHRext-mAb did not substantially compete for GH binding. However, to address this further in the context of our current findings, we performed 125I-hGH binding experiments with C14 cells (Fig. 5
). Serum-starved cells in monolayer were preincubated for 30 min at room temperature with varying concentrations of anti-GHRext-mAb or, as a control, a high concentration of anti-GHRcyt-mAb before continued incubation for 1 h with 125I-hGH (50,000 cpm per sample; 25 pM) in the presence or absence of excess unlabeled hGH to determine nonspecific binding. Specific 125I-hGH cell surface binding was determined after washing and solubilization of the cells by
-counting and subtraction of nonspecific binding. Radiolabeled GH binding was somewhat inhibited by increasing concentrations of anti-GHRext-mAb. However, it is notable that the inhibition was incomplete even at the highest concentrations of antibody used (concentrations far above those that were completely inhibitory in the experiments in Fig. 4
). Furthermore, it is also important that the concentration of radiolabeled GH present in the binding experiments (
0.55 ng/ml; 25 pM) was far less than that to which cells were exposed in the signaling experiments (500 ng/ml; 22.7 nM). Thus, the molar ratio of anti-GHRext-mAb:GH was much greater in the binding experiments than in the signaling experiments; yet, the inhibition of binding of anti-GHRext-mAb was far less efficient than its inhibition of signaling. These data suggest that the effects of the antibody on GH signaling are not likely explained solely by its ability to inhibit GH binding, but instead reflect its blockade of GH-induced conformational changes in the receptor required for activation.
Effects of Anti-GHRext-mAb on Inducible GHR Proteolysis
We previously demonstrated that inducible GHR proteolysis is catalyzed by a metalloprotease activity and may be a regulator of cellular GH sensitivity (11, 12, 13, 15, 25). Furthermore, this activity is likely responsible for generation of GH binding protein in humans and other species (26). The data in Figs. 4
and 5
demonstrated that GH-induced receptor activation was prevented by anti-GHRext-mAb by a mechanism other than inhibition of GH binding. Despite our findings that residues in the stem region of the ECD that includes the receptor cleavage site do not contribute significantly to the epitope(s) recognized by anti-GHRext-mAb (Fig. 2E
), we similarly examined whether pretreatment with anti-GHRext-mAb would affect the ability of the GHR to be inducibly proteolyzed (Fig. 6
). Serum-starved C14 cells were pretreated with varying concentrations of anti-GHRext-mAb for 30 min before treatment with phorbol-12-myristate-13-acetate (PMA) or its vehicle for 30 min. Cells were harvested, and detergent soluble proteins were resolved and immunoblotted with anti-GHRcyt-AL47. As we have previously shown for several cell types (12, 13, 14, 15, 17), PMA treatment caused a dramatic loss of the full-length GHR (indicated by a bracket) and the appearance of a roughly 65-kDa protein (indicated by an arrow) reactive with the anti-GHR serum directed at the cytoplasmic domain (Fig. 7A
, lane 2 vs. 1). We previously termed the latter protein the GHR remnant, which contains the receptor cytoplasmic and transmembrane domains as well as the eight ECD residues that remain after proteolysis and shedding of the majority of the ECD as the GHBP (11, 15). As the concentration of anti-GHRext-mAb added to the cells during the pretreatment period was increased, there was no appreciable effect on the basal abundance of either receptor or remnant (lanes 3, 5, and 7 vs. 1), but there was a notable progressive inhibition of PMA-induced receptor loss and remnant accumulation (lanes 3 and 4, 5 and 6, and 7 and 8 vs. 1 and 2). PMA-induced receptor cleavage was nearly completely inhibited by the presence of anti-GHRext-mAb at 12 µg/ml, but anti-GHRcyt-mAb failed to inhibit proteolysis (lanes 9 and 10 vs. 7 and 8). Several such experiments were analyzed denstiometrically and the pooled results are presented in Fig. 6B
. These data suggest that anti-GHRext-mAb specifically inhibits inducible metalloproteolysis of the rbGHR, even though it does not directly bind the receptor at the cleavage site.
|
|
2A-JAK2 cell line. We first verified that each exhibited the same signaling properties in these cells as we observed in COS-7 cells in Fig. 3
2A-JAK2 cells were transiently transfected with expression vectors encoding either WTrbGHR, rbGHR-T147K, or rbGHR-H150D, serum starved, and treated with GH or vehicle for 15 min (Fig. 7A
2A-JAK2 cells. The susceptibility of each receptor in this system to inducible proteolysis was assessed by treatment of transiently transfected cells with PMA or vehicle followed by anti-GHRcyt-AL47 immunoblotting of detergent cell extracts (Fig. 7B
WTrbGHR and rbGHR-H150D (the signaling-incompetent dimerization interface mutant) were further compared with regard to inducible proteolysis in the experiment shown in Fig. 7C
. As expected, PMA treatment of cells transiently expressing WTrbGHR caused receptor loss (lane 2 vs. 1), and this effect was blocked by preincubation with anti-GHRext-mAb (lanes 3 and 4 vs. 1 and 2). We previously demonstrated that exposure of cells to GH inhibited subsequent inducible receptor proteolysis, an effect believed to indicate that GH-induced conformational changes rendered the receptor less susceptible to metalloprotease-mediated cleavage (14). This inhibitory effect of GH was again seen when WTrbGHR was transiently expressed in
2A-JAK2 cells (lanes 5 and 6 vs. 1 and 2). rbGHR-H150D, despite being incompetent for GH-induced signaling, was inducibly proteolyzed in response to PMA in a fashion indistinguishable from WTrbGHR (lanes 7 and 8 vs. 1 and 2). However, unlike WTrbGHR, neither anti-GHRext-mAb nor GH pretreatment blocked PMA-induced rbGHR-H150D proteolysis (lanes 9 and 10 and 11 and 12 vs. 3 and 4 and 5 and 6). The lack of GH protection of rbGHR-H150D from proteolysis is consistent with the notion that a GH-induced receptor conformational change is required if protection is to be afforded. The inability of anti-GHRext-mAb to prevent rbGHR-H150D proteolysis is in accordance with its inability to recognize the same mutant receptor by immunoprecipitation (Fig. 3C
); furthermore, it bolsters the conclusion that prevention of WTrbGHR cleavage by anti-GHRext-mAb is not due to direct interference with the stem region cleavage site.
A Fab Fragment Mimics the Effects of Intact anti-GHRext-mAb
Our data indicate that anti-GHRext-mAb specifically inhibits GH-induced signaling, although much less effectively reducing cell surface GH binding. Furthermore, this antibody also specifically inhibits PMA-induced GHR proteolysis. Because anti-GHRext-mAb appears to recognize the GHR in a conformationally sensitive fashion, we considered whether some of its effects might be exerted by the non-antigen-recognizing regions of the antibody. For example, could the inhibition of anti-GHRext-mAb of receptor proteolysis be due its binding to its epitope (e.g. the dimerization interface) and sterically hindering metalloprotease access to the stem region cleavage site, simply by virtue of the presence of the antibody rather than induction of a receptor conformational change? To address this issue, we subjected anti-GHRext-mAb to papain cleavage and recovered the resulting Fab fragments. Anti-GHRext-mAbFab was tested for its effects on GH signaling, GH binding, and inducible GHR proteolysis. Pretreatment of C14 cells with anti-GHRext-mAbFab before GH treatment markedly reduced GH-induced JAK2 tyrosine phosphorylation (Fig. 8A
, upper panel), STAT5 tyrosine phosphorylation (Fig. 8B
), and GHR disulfide linkage (Fig. 8A
, lower panel). Anti-GHRext-mAb- Fab pretreatment also only partially inhibited 125I-GH surface binding to C14 cells (Fig. 8C
) and markedly inhibited PMA-induced GHR proteolysis (Fig. 8D
).
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The evidence for conformational changes being critical for GH-induced GHR activation has emerged in part from studies of anti-GHR ECD antibodies that are stimulatory. Mellado et al. (27) described an IgM monoclonal antibody reactive with the inter-subdomain hinge region. Independent of GH stimulation, this antibody promoted GHR-mediated activation of intracellular tyrosine phosphorylation and cellular proliferation and treatment with GH enhanced the antibodys recognition of GHR, suggesting that the antibody mimicked a GH-induced change in receptor conformation. Similarly, a separate stimulatory anti-GHR ECD monoclonal antibody was shown to lose its stimulatory effect upon mutation of a loop in subdomain 2 that has been implicated as undergoing GH-induced conformational change (8, 29). Whether these supposed GH-induced changes in GHR structure are like those believed to occur for the erythropoietin (Epo) receptor, in response to Epo (30, 31) is as yet unknown. However, key differences, such as the relatively much smaller dimerization interface in the Epo receptor, make comparisons difficult to draw (28).
In this study, we further characterized a separate monoclonal anti-GHR ECD antibody, anti-GHRext-mAb, that is not stimulatory of GHR signaling. Rather, we defined it as conformationally sensitive in its recognition of the GHR and inhibitory of several GHR-mediated phenomena. Our initial characterization of anti-GHRext-mAb indicated that its ability to immunoprecipitate the GHR was markedly lessened by pretreatment of cells with GH (14), a phenomenon confirmed in a different cell type and extended to consideration of the cell surface receptor in the current study in Fig. 1
. G120K, a GH antagonist that binds GHR but fails to activate signaling, failed to itself inhibit anti-GHRext-mAb immunoprecipitation and antagonized the inhibitory effect of GH on anti-GHRext-mAb immunoprecipitation (14). It was thus seen as unlikely that the inhibitory effect of GH was due to its direct blockade of anti-GHRext-mAb recognition by virtue of the GH binding site being also the anti-GHRext-mAb epitope (14).
Our current experiments in Fig. 2
, B and D, support this view in that anti-GHRext-mAb immunoreactivity is present in subdomain 2 (which includes the dimerization interface), rather than subdomain 1 (which harbors most of the residues involved in GH binding). In these experiments, we note that the same results were obtained when anti-GHRext-mAb was used to detect the fusion proteins by both immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting. Both domains (1 and 2) are each comprised of several ß sandwich strands, which collectively organize into a sandwich of two ß sheets (4). The finding that separate pairs of these strands were not recognized by anti-GHRext-mAb in immunoblots and immunoprecipitation favors the view that its epitope is complex, requiring precise organization of these ß strands. This is similar to the situation with MAb 263, a monoclonal antibody that recognizes a complex GHR extracellular subdomain 1 epitope comprised of 20 amino acids distributed in a discontinuous manner (32).
In the current study (Fig. 3
, AC), we showed that a receptor mutated within the dimerization interface that is functionally impaired in undergoing GH-induced signaling (rbGHR-H150D) is not recognized by anti-GHRext-mAb, even in the absence of GH stimulation. Yet, another dimerization interface mutant (rbGHR-T147K) retains the capacity (albeit to a reduced extent) to be detected by anti-GHRext-mAb. We find this result interesting in that, unlike rbGHR-H150D, mutation of residue 147 [even though it is also a point of dimer contact in the interface (4)] did not render the receptor incapable of activation or of undergoing GH-induced disulfide linkage (Ref.21 and Fig. 3
, A and B). Thus, only disruption of the dimerization interface residue that led to complete inability of the receptor to conformationally change and become activated was associated with complete loss of anti-GHRext-mAb reactivity. Considering these findings in the context of the fusion protein-mapping experiments discussed above, it is plausible that the actual epitope for anti-GHRext-mAb includes H150, but not T147, within the dimerization domain or that interface domain intactness is required for formation of the epitope at another region within the receptor ECD subdomain 2. Further studies will be necessary to discriminate between the latter two possibilities. However, the results in Fig. 2E
indicate that residues in the ECD stem region [which, although nearby to the dimerization interface in the GHR crystal structure, are spatially distinct from it (4)] are not components of the anti-GHRext-mAb epitope.
Our data clearly indicate that anti-GHRext-mAb can recognize the rbGHR on the surface of cells (Fig. 1
) and, when applied to cells, the antibody or its Fab fragment specifically blocks proximal aspects of GH signaling (JAK2 and STAT5 tyrosine phosphorylation) (Figs. 4
, A and B, and 8A
). Furthermore, this blockade was accompanied by inhibition of GH-induced GHR disulfide linkage (Fig. 4C
for the antibody; Fig. 8B
for the Fab fragment). Receptor disulfide linkage via the free sulfhydryl group of cysteine-241 (the only unpaired ECD cysteine in the GHR) in the ECD stem region is a GH-induced event that corresponds directly to the induction of GH signaling in a variety of cell types, very likely by reflecting the GH-induced conformational changes in constitutive receptor dimers that convert them into dimers competent for signal transduction (7, 9, 10). Furthermore, our 125I-hGH cell surface binding assays (Figs. 5
and 8C
) showed that anti-GHRext-mAb or Fab fragment pretreatment only partially inhibited GH binding and that the molar ratio of antibody or Fab to GH required for even partial binding inhibition was far greater than that leading to complete inhibition of GH-induced GHR triggering and signaling. Thus, we favor the interpretation that anti-GHRext-mAb exerts its inhibitory effect on GH signaling by not allowing GH-induced receptor conformational changes to occur, rather than by either directly blocking GH binding or impairing selectively the ability of conformationally competent GHRs to activate JAK2. It is, of course, possible that anti-GHRext-mAb, by inhibiting apposition of dimerization domain interfaces, prevents stabilization of the ternary complex (GH:GHR2) (6), and decreases equilibrium binding. However, if this were so, one would expect a doubling in sites available for 125I-GH binding in 1:1 complexes, as observed for MAb5, which recognizes the dimerization domain (33, 34).
Our characterization of anti-GHRext-mAb may also help us to better understand the effects of GH-induced conformational change on the sensitivity of the GHR to inducible metalloproteolysis. Stimuli such as phorbol ester, platelet-derived growth factor, and serum can in a variety of cell systems cause metalloprotease-mediated GHR cleavage in the perimembranous ECD stem region (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 35). This can result in the shedding of the ECD as the GHBP and modulates cellular GH sensitivity (12, 13, 15). We previously demonstrated that pretreatment with GH lessens the subsequent proteolysis of the receptor induced by PMA stimulation (14). The inhibitory effect of GH on GHR proteolysis is not due to GH signaling because it occurs even in the absence of JAK2; nor is it related to GH-induced GHR down-regulation because a receptor mutant lacking the cytoplasmic domain region required for internalization is still desensitized to inducible proteolysis by GH (14). Rather, as supported by the finding that the G120K GH antagonist did not inhibit proteolysis but did compete with GH for this effect, the inhibition appeared more related to GH induction of conformational changes in the GHR dimer (14). Indeed, the data in Fig. 7
of this report support this conclusion in that rbGHR-H150D, which apparently cannot undergo such conformational change, was inducibly cleaved in response to PMA and, unlike WT rbGHR, GH did not prevent this rbGHR-H150D cleavage.
In this context, we find it interesting that anti-GHRext-mAb or Fab fragment pretreatment specifically inhibited PMA-induced WT rbGHR proteolysis (Figs. 6
, A and B, 7C
, and 8C
). Although it did not function as a GH agonist in terms of triggering signaling, anti-GHRext-mAb mimicked GH with regard to inhibiting receptor proteolysis. However, it is unclear to what degree, if any, that the mechanisms of GH and the effects of anti-GHRext-mAb on GHR proteolysis are similar. Anti-GHRext-mAb does not appear to interact with the stem region that harbors the actual cleavage site and its inhibitory potential is lost on rbGHR-H150D, to which it does not bind. One possible mechanism of inhibition might be that anti-GHRext-mAb binding to the dimerization interface (or a region influenced by the dimerization interface) alters the conformation of the GHR dimer in such a way as to make stem region cleavage less likely. In this respect, GH may also change the dimerization interface to similarly lessen the susceptibility of the stem region cleavage site, but in so doing may in addition induce changes required for GHR triggering that are not allowed by anti-GHRext-mAb binding. Another unrelated potential mechanism of anti-GHRext-mAb inhibition of receptor proteolysis could be that antibody binding to its epitope (e.g. the dimerization interface) may sterically hinder metalloprotease access to the stem region cleavage site, simply by virtue of the presence of the antibody rather than induction of a receptor conformational change. Discrimination among these and other possible mechanisms of anti-GHRext-mAb inhibition of GHR proteolysis and assessment of any mechanistic similarities with GH in this respect will await further studies. However, our finding that the Fab fragment inhibits GHR proteolysis with very similar (molar) concentration dependence as anti-GHRext-mAb argues that any such steric hindrance would not be accounted for by the antibodys Fc region.
GH has important somatogenic and metabolic effects at the liver and other target tissues (1). With chronically increased levels, GH causes the characteristic stigmata and organ damage of acromegaly (36). Furthermore, even at normal levels, GH may participate in mediation of pathologic changes, such as ischemia-induced neovascularization of the retina (37) and diabetes-related nephropathy (38). GH antagonists have proven useful clinically and experimentally in ameliorating these deleterious effects of GH (37, 38, 39, 40). The studies described herein suggest that anti-GHRext-mAb and its Fab fragment can inhibit GH-induced signaling and GHR proteolysis in cell culture model systems. Further studies delineating more precisely the mechanisms of these effects may suggest whether this antibody or Fab may also have utility in vivo to modulate effects of GH and serve as a potential therapeutic agent. In addition, our current studies emphasize that, in addition to its ability to prevent the receptor from achieving the activated state, anti-GHRext-mAb loses recognition of the GHR when in its activated conformation and can subtly discriminate between receptors mutated within the dimerization interface on the basis of their capability for activation. These properties will make it an attractive tool in future studies of the mechanisms of GH-induced GHR activation, an area of major current interest in GH and cytokine research.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Cells, Cell Culture, and Transfection
COS-7 cells were grown in DMEM (1 g/liter glucose) (Mediatech, Inc., Herndon, VA) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (Biofluids, Camarillo, CA), 50 µg/ml gentamicin sulfate, 100 U/ml penicillin, and 100 µg/ml streptomycin. C14 cells (previously referred to as
2A-GHR/JAK2) have been described (16). In brief, C14 is a stable cell line (clone 14) resulting from expression of the rabbit GHR and murine JAK2 in the JAK2-deficient
2A human fibrosarcoma cell line (41). C14 cells were maintained in DMEM (1 g/liter glucose) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, 50 µg/ml gentamicin sulfate, 100 U/ml penicillin, 100 µg/ml streptomycin, 200 µg/ml G418, 100 µg/ml hygromycin B, and 100 µg/ml Zeocin.
2A-JAK2 cells (20) were maintained in the same medium as C14 cells, but without hygromycin B. Transient transfection of COS-7 cells was performed at 75% confluency using the calcium phosphate precipitation method, as described previously (42, 43) in 100- x 20-mm dishes (Becton Dickinson Labware, Franklin Lakes, NJ). Each dish was transfected with 15 µg of GHR-expressing plasmids along with 10 µg pSX JAK2. Transient transfection of
2A-JAK2 cells was accomplished with LipofectAMINE Plus (Invitrogen Life Technologies) according to the manufacturers protocol, as previously described (16).
Plasmid Construction and Preparation of GST Fusion Proteins
The plasmid encoding GST/GHR1246 [GST N-terminal to residues 1246 of the rabbit GHR (the entire ECD)] has been previously described (9, 12, 42). Analogous plasmids encoding rabbit GHR residues 1128, 129246, 128169, 169202, 202246, 128202, and 169246 were generated by PCR subcloning into the EcoRI and XhoI sites of the pGEX-4T-1 vector (PCR primer sequences are available upon request). GST fusion proteins were expressed in Escherichia coli and purified as described previously (22). Expression plasmids for WT rbGHR, rbGHR-T147K, and rbGHR-H150D in the pECE vector have been described previously (21), as were pSX-JAK2 (24) and pcDNA expression plasmids encoding WT' (rbGHRdel 297406),
237239,
240242, and
242244 (15).
Antibodies
The anti-p-JAK2 state-specific antibody reactive with JAK2 that is phosphorylated at residues Y1007 and Y1008 (reflective of JAK2 activation), anti-pTyr monoclonal antibody (4G10), and monoclonal anti-GST were purchased from Upstate Biotechnology, Inc. (Lake Placid, NY). Rabbit anti-pTyrSTAT5 polyclonal antibody (raised against a phosphopeptide surrounding phosphorylated Tyr694 of murine STAT5 in both STAT5A and STAT5B) was obtained from Zymed Laboratories, Inc. (San Francisco, CA).
The rabbit polyclonal antiserum, anti-GHRcyt-AL47, raised against a bacterially expressed N-terminally His-tagged fusion protein incorporating hGHR residues 271620 [the entire cytoplasmic domain (2)], has been previously described (14). Anti-GHRcyt-AL37 was raised against a bacterially expressed GST fusion with hGHR residues 271620, as described (44). Anti-GHRcyt-mAb is a mouse monoclonal antibody (IgG2b
) directed against a bacterially expressed GST fusion protein incorporating hGHR residues 271620 and has been previously described (9). Anti-GHRext-mAb, a mouse monoclonal antibody (IgG1
) directed against a bacterially expressed GST fusion protein incorporating rabbit GHR residues 1246, has been previously described (9, 12, 42). Both monoclonal anti-GHR antibodies were purified from hybridoma supernatant using protein G-Sepharose (at the UAB Multipurpose Arthritis Center Hybridoma Core facility).
Preparation of anti-GHRext-mAbFab was carried out at Rockland Immunochemicals, Inc. (Gilbertsville, PA). In brief, 110 mg of purified antibody was subjected to papain digestion, followed by selective precipitation to separate Fab from Fc components and undigested antibody. After extensive dialysis, assay by immunoelectrophoresis resulted in a single precipitin arc against antimouse IgG F(ab')2. No reaction was observed against antimouse IgG Fc. The yield of purified Fab fragment was roughly 13 mg at a stock concentration of 0.82 mg/ml in 0.02 M potassium phosphate/0.15 M NaCl (pH 7.2).
Cell Stimulation, Protein Extraction, Immunoprecipitation, Electrophoresis, and Immunoblotting
Serum starvation was accomplished by substitution of 0.5% (wt/vol) BSA (fraction V, Roche Molecular Biochemicals, Indianapolis, IN) for serum in culture media for 1620 h before experiments. Unless otherwise noted, stimulations were performed at 37 C. Details of the hGH (500 ng/ml) and PMA (at 1 µg/ml) treatment protocols have been described (14, 15, 16). Briefly, adherent cells were stimulated in binding buffer [BB, consisting of 25 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 120 mM NaCl, 5 mM KCl, 1.2 mM MgCl2, 0.1% (wt/vol) BSA, and 1 mM dextrose] or DMEM (1 g/liter glucose) with 0.5% (wt/vol) BSA. Stimulations were terminated by washing the cells once with ice-cold PBS in the presence of 0.4 mM sodium orthovanadate (PBS-vanadate) and then harvesting by scraping in cold PBS-vanadate. Pelleted cells were collected by brief centrifugation. For each cell type, pelleted cells were solubilized for 15 min at 4 C in lysis buffer [1% (vol/vol) Triton X-100, 150 mM NaCl, 10% (vol/vol) glycerol, 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 100 mM NaF, 2 mM EDTA, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 1 mM sodium orthovanadate, 10 mM benzamidine, and 10 µg/ml aprotinin], as indicated. After centrifugation at 15,000 x g for 15 min at 4 C, the detergent extracts were electrophoresed under reducing or nonreducing conditions or subjected to immunoprecipitations, as indicated. For experiments in which the monoclonal antibodies and Fab fragment were tested for effects on cell signaling and GH binding, the indicated concentrations of purified antibodies or Fab fragment were added directly to serum-starved cells at 37 C for the pretreatment durations indicated in the figure legends.
For standard immunoprecipitation of the GHR with the monoclonal anti-GHRcyt-mAb or anti-GHRext-mAb antibodies, 5 µg or 3 µg, respectively, of purified antibody per precipitation was added to detergent cell extracts. Protein-G Sepharose (Amersham Biosciences, Piscataway, NJ) was used to adsorb immune complexes. For surface immunoreaction, serum-starved cells were treated for 15 min at 37 C or 90 min at 4 C, as indicated, with or without GH (500 ng/ml), after which antibody was added directly to cells at 4 C for 45 or 60 min, as indicated. Thereafter, cells were washed three times with cold PBS and detergent-solubilized and antibodies were adsorbed on Protein-G Sepharose. In all cases, after extensive washing, sodium dodecyl sulfate sample buffer eluates were resolved by SDS-PAGE and immunoblotted, as indicated. Resolution of proteins by SDS-PAGE, Western transfer of proteins, and blocking of Hybond-ECL (Amersham, Inc.) with 2% BSA were performed as previously described (9, 15, 16). Immunoblotting with anti-GHRcyt-AL47 (1:20001:4000), anti-GHRcyt-AL37 (1:2000), anti-pTyrJAK2 (1:1000), anti-pTyrSTAT5 (1:1000), anti-GST (1:1000), or anti-pTyr (1:4000) with horseradish peroxidase-conjugated antimouse or antirabbit secondary antibodies (1:100001:15000) and detection reagents (SuperSignal West Pico Chemiluminescent Substrate) (all from Pierce, Rockford, IL) and stripping and reprobing of blots were accomplished according to manufacturers suggestions.
125I-hGH Cell Surface Binding Assay
C14 cells were equally divided into six-well plates and serum-starved over night. Cells were pretreated in triplicate with varying concentrations of monoclonal antibody or Fab fragment, as indicated, for 30 min at 37 C in 1 ml BB before incubation with 125I-hGH [50,000 cpm (
25 pM) per well] either in the presence (to determine nonspecific binding) or absence of 2 µg/ml (
91 nM) unlabeled hGH for 1 h at 25 C. Cells were washed three times with cold PBS and solubilized in 1 ml 1% SDS-0.1 N NaOH and the lysate was subjected to
-counting. Data within each experiment were expressed as specific 125I-GH binding relative to that measured in the absence of antibody pretreatment (PBS control; considered 100%) and displayed in Fig. 6
as pooled data from a number of different experiments, as in the figure legend.
Densitometric Analysis
Densitometric quantitation of immunoblots was performed using a high-resolution scanner (Epson) and the ImageJ 1.3 program (developed by W. S. Rasband, Research Services Branch, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD). In Fig. 7
, the degree of PMA-induced receptor loss was estimated as 100% minus the densitometric ratio of mature GHR signal in the presence vs. absence of PMA treatment. This ratio, determined in individual experiments, was displayed in the figure as the pooled data from multiple experiments in the presence of pretreatment with varying concentrations of antibody, as in the figure legend.
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
1 J.J. and X.W. were equal contributors to this work. ![]()
Abbreviations: anti-GHRext-mAb, Monoclonal anti-ECD antibody; dsl, disulfide-linked; ECD, extracellular domain; Epo, erythropoietin; GHBP, GH binding protein; GHR, GH receptor; GST, glutathione-S-transferase; h, human; JAK, Janus kinase; PMA, phorbol-12-myristate-13-acetate; rbGHR, rabbit GHR; STAT, signal transducer and activator of transcription; WT, wild-type.
Received for publication March 9, 2004. Accepted for publication August 24, 2004.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
converting enzyme (TACE) is a growth hormone binding protein (GHBP) sheddase: the metalloprotease TACE/ADAM-17 is critical for (PMA-induced) growth hormone receptor proteolysis and GHBP generation. Endocrinology 141:43424348
and
interferon responses. Mol Cell Biol 17:695706This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
X. Wang, N. Yang, L. Deng, X. Li, J. Jiang, Y. Gan, and S. J. Frank Interruption of Growth Hormone Signaling via SHC and ERK in 3T3-F442A Preadipocytes upon Knockdown of Insulin Receptor Substrate-1 Mol. Endocrinol., April 1, 2009; 23(4): 486 - 496. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
X. Wang, J. Jiang, J. Warram, G. Baumann, Y. Gan, R. K. Menon, L. A. Denson, K. R. Zinn, and S. J. Frank Endotoxin-Induced Proteolytic Reduction in Hepatic Growth Hormone (GH) Receptor: A Novel Mechanism for GH Insensitivity Mol. Endocrinol., June 1, 2008; 22(6): 1427 - 1437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Yang, J. F. Langenheim, X. Wang, J. Jiang, W. Y. Chen, and S. J. Frank Activation of Growth Hormone Receptors by Growth Hormone and Growth Hormone Antagonist Dimers: Insights into Receptor Triggering Mol. Endocrinol., April 1, 2008; 22(4): 978 - 988. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Fang, R. Girgis, B. M. Little, K. L. Pratt, J. Guevara-Aguirre, V. Hwa, and R. G. Rosenfeld Growth Hormone (GH) Insensitivity and Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I Deficiency in Inuit Subjects and an Ecuadorian Cohort: Functional Studies of Two Codon 180 GH Receptor Gene Mutations J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., March 1, 2008; 93(3): 1030 - 1037. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Loesch, L. Deng, X. Wang, K. He, J. Jiang, and S. J. Frank Endoplasmic Reticulum-Associated Degradation of Growth Hormone Receptor in Janus Kinase 2-Deficient Cells Endocrinology, December 1, 2007; 148(12): 5955 - 5965. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. L. Asa, R. DiGiovanni, J. Jiang, M. L. Ward, K. Loesch, S. Yamada, T. Sano, K. Yoshimoto, S. J. Frank, and S. Ezzat A Growth Hormone Receptor Mutation Impairs Growth Hormone Autofeedback Signaling in Pituitary Tumors Cancer Res., August 1, 2007; 67(15): 7505 - 7511. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Yang, X. Wang, J. Jiang, and S. J. Frank Role of the Growth Hormone (GH) Receptor Transmembrane Domain in Receptor Predimerization and GH-Induced Activation Mol. Endocrinol., July 1, 2007; 21(7): 1642 - 1655. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Deng, K. He, X. Wang, N. Yang, C. Thangavel, J. Jiang, S. Y. Fuchs, and S. J. Frank Determinants of Growth Hormone Receptor Down-Regulation Mol. Endocrinol., July 1, 2007; 21(7): 1537 - 1551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. R. Reddy, M. J. Pushpanathan, R. F. Ransom, L. B. Holzman, F. C. Brosius III, M. Diakonova, P. Mathieson, M. A. Saleem, E. O. List, J. J. Kopchick, et al. Identification of the Glomerular Podocyte as a Target for Growth Hormone Action Endocrinology, May 1, 2007; 148(5): 2045 - 2055. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. J. Frank, X. Wang, K. He, N. Yang, P. Fang, R. G. Rosenfeld, V. Hwa, T. R. Chaudhuri, L. Deng, and K. R. Zinn In Vivo Imaging of Hepatic Growth Hormone Signaling Mol. Endocrinol., November 1, 2006; 20(11): 2819 - 2830. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Loesch, L. Deng, J. W. Cowan, X. Wang, K. He, J. Jiang, R. A. Black, and S. J. Frank Janus Kinase 2 Influences Growth Hormone Receptor Metalloproteolysis Endocrinology, June 1, 2006; 147(6): 2839 - 2849. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M J Waters, H N Hoang, D P Fairlie, R A Pelekanos, and R J Brown New insights into growth hormone action J. Mol. Endocrinol., February 1, 2006; 36(1): 1 - 7. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. He, K. Loesch, J. W. Cowan, X. Li, L. Deng, X. Wang, J. Jiang, and S. J. Frank Janus Kinase 2 Enhances the Stability of the Mature Growth Hormone Receptor Endocrinology, November 1, 2005; 146(11): 4755 - 4765. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. W. Cowan, X. Wang, R. Guan, K. He, J. Jiang, G. Baumann, R. A. Black, M. S. Wolfe, and S. J. Frank Growth Hormone Receptor Is a Target for Presenilin-dependent {gamma}-Secretase Cleavage J. Biol. Chem., May 13, 2005; 280(19): 19331 - 19342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Endocrinology | Endocrine Reviews | J. Clin. End. & Metab. |
| Molecular Endocrinology | Recent Prog. Horm. Res. | All Endocrine Journals |