|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepublished online as a Blood First Edition Paper on October 24, 2002; DOI 10.1182/blood-2002-09-2742.
RED CELLS
From the Department of Cell and Developmental
Biology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland OR; Howard
Hughes Medical Institute and the Division of Biology, California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Cellular iron uptake in most tissues occurs via endocytosis of
diferric transferrin (Tf) bound to the transferrin receptor (TfR).
Recently, a second transferrin receptor, transferrin receptor 2 (TfR2),
has been identified and shown to play a critical role in iron
metabolism. TfR2 is capable of Tf-mediated iron uptake and mutations in
this gene result in a rare form of hereditary hemochromatosis unrelated
to the hereditary hemochromatosis protein, HFE. Unlike TfR, TfR2
expression is not controlled by cellular iron concentrations and little
information is currently available regarding the role of TfR2 in
cellular iron homeostasis. To investigate the relationship between TfR
and TfR2, we performed a series of in vivo and in vitro experiments
using antibodies generated to each receptor. Western blots demonstrate
that TfR2 protein is expressed strongest in erythroid/myeloid cell
lines. Metabolic labeling studies indicate that TfR2 protein levels are
approximately 20-fold lower than TfR in these cells. TfR and TfR2 have
similar cellular localizations in K562 cells and coimmunoprecipitate to only a very limited extent. Western analysis of the receptors under
nonreducing conditions reveals that they can form heterodimers.
(Blood. 2003;101:2008-2014) Iron is an essential nutrient required for a
variety of biochemical processes such as respiration, metabolism, and
DNA synthesis. To maintain intracellular iron levels, cells possess
tightly regulated mechanisms for iron absorption and metabolism.
Transferrin (Tf), the major iron transport protein in the
blood, is taken up into cells by binding to the transferrin receptor 2 (TfR2). This homodimeric membrane receptor binds 2 Tf
molecules and is internalized into endosomes that are acidified,
resulting in the release of iron from Tf. Iron is transported across
the vesicle membrane for utilization and/or storage within the cell,
and the TfR-Tf complex recycles back to the cell surface
where apo-Tf is released at the higher pH of blood (pH 7.4; reviewed in
Aisen et al1). The TfR plays a critical
role in iron homeostasis. The TfR knock-out mouse
results in embryonic lethality.2
The recently identified TfR2, a second distinct Tf
receptor, is most likely responsible for the
non-TfR-mediated uptake of Tf into cells, and it also
plays a critical role in iron homeostasis.3 Mutations in
this gene are associated with a rare form of hemochromatosis unrelated
to mutations in the hereditary hemochromatosis protein, HFE.3 TfR2 can support growth of a
transfected Chinese hamster ovary cell line lacking endogenous
transferrin receptors when given Tf as an iron source.4
However, TfR2 expression is not sufficient to replace
the function of TfR, because mice in which the
TfR gene has been deleted die as embryos.2
TfR2, like TfR, is a type II membrane
glycoprotein with a large C-terminal ectodomain and a small N-terminal
cytoplasmic domain.5,6 TfR2 shares 45%
amino acid sequence identity with TfR in the
extracellular region, contains a cytoplasmic internalization motif
similar to TfR, and has 2 cysteines, which form
intersubunit disulfide bonds, in the ectodomain proximal to the
transmembrane domain.5,6
Clear differences exist between the 2 transferrin receptors despite
their similarities. Both receptors bind diferric Tf better than
apotransferrin at neutral pH, however the affinity of
TfR2 for Tf is approximately 25-fold lower than that of
TfR.5 While TfR and HFE are
associated in the placenta and transfected cells,7,8 and
in vitro binding assays demonstrate that the ectodomain of TfR binds to HFE with nM affinity,9-11 the
TfR2 ectodomain does not detectably bind to
HFE.12 In humans and mice, TfR2 is
expressed predominantly in liver and erythroid cells, while
TfR is expressed in a wider range of
tissues.5,6,13 Even though the ectodomains of the 2 TfRs are similar, their cytoplasmic domains share no sequence homology. TfR expression is controlled
primarily at the posttranscriptional level in response to cellular iron
levels, while TfR2 expression is not influenced by
changes in cellular iron levels.4-6 TfR2
expression is controlled at the transcriptional level by the erythroid
transcription factor GATA-1.14
Although TfR2 can mediate cellular iron uptake in
transfected cells, little is known about its physiologic function and
potential interaction with TfR in cell lines that
express both receptors. In this study, we investigated the interaction
of TfR and TfR2 from the K562 chronic
myelogenous cell line with erythrocytic features and from human liver
tissue, and we compared the quantities and cellular localization of
each receptor. TfR is more abundant than
TfR2 in K562 cells while the reverse is true in human
liver. We found that in K562 cells TfR and
TfR2 colocalize, but coprecipitate to only a limited
extent. In liver, only limited coprecipitation of the 2 receptors is
detected. These data suggest that homotypic more than heterotypic
interactions at the dimer interface are favored.
Generation of monoclonal antibodies to TfR and
TfR2
Cell lines
Immunodetection K562 cells were maintained in RPMI-1640 (Sigma, St Louis, MO) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum. Cells were collected and counted on a hemocytometer, washed 3 times with ice-cold phosphate-buffered saline (PBS; pH 7.4) and lysed at a concentration of 1 × 107 cells/mL in NET-Triton buffer (150 mM NaCl, 5 mM EDTA [ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid], 10 mM Tris, pH 7.4, 1% Triton X-100). Cell extracts were incubated with 2 × Laemmli buffer17 and subjected to electrophoresis on 8% polyacrylamide gels under both reducing and nonreducing denaturing conditions. Separated proteins were transferred to nitrocellulose and blocked overnight at 4°C with 5% milk in 0.01 M Tris-HCl, 0.15 M NaCl, pH 7.4, plus 0.05% Tween-20. Immunoblot analysis was performed using either a sheep anti-TfR serum (1:10 000 dilution)18 or the monoclonal anti-TfR2 (9F8 1C11) antibody (1:10 000 dilution) followed by the appropriate secondary antibody conjugated to horseradish peroxidase and chemiluminescence (Supersignal; Pierce, Rockford, IL) per the manufacturer's directions.Immunoprecipitation K562 cells were washed 3 times with ice-cold PBS and lysed with NET-Triton buffer (0.05 M Tris-Cl, 0.15 M NaCl, 5 mM EDTA, pH 7.4, 1% Triton X-100) followed by centrifugation at 2000g for 5 minutes to remove nuclei. Cell lysates were incubated for 60 minutes at 4°C with either 25 µL of protein A-Sepharose (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) or 25 µL of protein A-Sepharose coated with affinity-purified rabbit anti-mouse IgG (Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories, West Grove, PA), and 1.5 µL of either sheep anti-TfR serum or mouse anti-TfR2. The pellet was resuspended into 100 µL NET-Triton buffer, layered on top of 1 mL of the same buffer with 15% sucrose, and pelleted. Samples were eluted in 30 µL of 2 × Laemmli buffer,17 subjected to sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) analysis on an 8% polyacrylamide gel, transferred to nitrocellulose, and immunodetected for either TfR or TfR2.Quantitation of TfR and TfR2 Subconfluent K562 cells were incubated overnight at 37°C in RPMI-1640 medium without methionine (Life Technologies, Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) with 50 µCi (1.85 MBq) of 35S-methionine/cysteine with 10% fetal bovine serum. The cells were then washed 3 times with ice-cold PBS and lysed in NET-Triton, and the nuclei pelleted. Cell extracts were subjected to immunoprecipitation with either sheep anti-TfR or mouse anti-TfR2 antibody as described in "Immunoprecipitation" and analyzed by SDS-PAGE on an 8% acrylamide gel under reducing and denaturing conditions. Gels were fixed, treated with Amplify (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) for 30 minutes, dried, and exposed to a PhosphorImager screen (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech). Quantitation of the amount of TfR and TfR2 took into account the differences in methionine and cysteine composition of the 2 receptors (22 Met and Cys for TfR and 15, for TfR2).Interaction of soluble HFE with cell extracts Cell extracts from K562 cells were incubated with the ectodomain of purified recombinant HFE/ 2 microglobulin (final
concentration 1 µM) for 60 minutes at 4°C (K562 + HFE) and immunoprecipitated using sheep anti-TfR serum
and Staphylococcus aureus (Pansorbin; Calbiochem, San Diego, CA). The ectodomain of purified recombinant HFE/2 microglobulin was generated as previously
described.9 Immunoprecipitated proteins were subjected to
SDS-PAGE on an 8% acrylamide gel, transferred to nitrocellulose, and
immunodetected for TfR2 or TfR.
Immunohistochemistry K562 cells were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde, blocked with 2.5 mg/mL bovine serum albumin (BSA), then incubated with sheep anti-TfR (1:50) and mouse anti-TfR2 antibody (1:300) for 1 hour at room temperature. Cells were layered onto 500 µL of fetal bovine serum, centrifuged at 1000g for 2 minutes, and resuspended, followed by incubation for 60 minutes with both Alexa 488 conjugated donkey antisheep antibody (1:500) (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR) and donkey anti-mouse IgG (Jackson ImmnunoResearch Laboratories) conjugated to Alexa 594 using an Alexa Fluor 594 Protein Labeling Kit (1:100) (Molecular Probes). Cells were again layered on top of 500 µL fetal bovine serum, pelleted, washed with PBS, and mounted on slides using Prolong Antifade (Molecular Probes). Images were obtained using a BioRad 1024 ES laser scanning confocal system (Hercules, CA) on a Nikon Eclipse TE300 microscope (Melville, NY) with a × 60 oil immersion Planapo objective. Permeabilized cells were treated with NET-Triton after fixation and prior to incubation with antibodies.
Characterization of TfR2 expression The relative amounts of TfR2 in a variety of human cell lines were visualized by Western blot analysis using the mouse monoclonal antibody (9F8 1C11) against the ectodomain of human TfR2 (Figure 1A). Closely migrating bands (2-3) of between approximately 97 and 105 kDa were observed for TfR2. Multiple bands have been observed previously and have been attributed to heterogeneity in glycosylation.4 The TfR2 signal was strongest in K562 and HEL 92 cells (erythroleukemia cell lines), moderate in HepG2 and Huh7 cells (hepatoblastoma cell lines), and undetectable in the Hep3B and SK1 Hep cell lines (hepatoblastoma cell lines). These results correlate with previous work, which demonstrated that TfR2 mRNA was expressed strongly in both K562 and HepG2 cells by Northern blot and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) analysis.5 In contrast, TfR protein levels were strong and uniform in these and other cell lines tested (data not shown).
Quantitation of TfR and TfR2 in K562 cells To measure the relative amounts of TfR and TfR2 protein, cell lysates from 35S-methionine/cysteine-labeled K562 cells were immunoprecipitated with either a sheep antihuman TfR antiserum or the mouse antihuman TfR2 monoclonal antibody (9F8 1C11), separated on a 8% acrylamide gel under reducing and denaturing conditions, dried, and exposed to a PhosphorImager (Figure 1B). The amount of TfR2 protein is approximately 20 times less than TfR protein. Background of the 35S-labeled immunoprecipitates prevented the quantitation of the amount of each receptor that formed heterodimers. We estimate that if 5% of TfR formed heterodimers with TfR2 then TfR should have been detectable in the TfR2 immunoprecipitates. If less than 25% of the TfR2 coprecipitated with TfR1 then the heterodimers would not be detectable by this method. Thus although the 2 TfR receptors coprecipitate in K562 cells, the coprecipitated material accounts for only less than 5% of the total amount of receptors.TfR and TfR2 association A series of immunoprecipitations and Western blots of the immunoprecipitated proteins were performed using TfR and TfR2 antibodies to determine the relative amounts of each protein in this cell line (Figure 2). When TfR was immunoprecipitated from K562 cell lysates followed by Western blotting for TfR2, TfR2 clearly coimmunoprecipitates with TfR (Figure 2A, lane 4). TfR2 also coprecipitates with TfR (Figure 2B, lane 4), as demonstrated by conducting the experiment in the reverse order (immunoprecipitate TfR2 and immunoblot for TfR). The coprecipitation does not result from an artifactual association of TfR or TfR2 with reagents used in the immunoprecipitation, since TfR does not bind protein G-Sepharose in the absence of antibody (Figure 2B, lane 3), TfR2 does not bind S aureus in the absence of antibody (Figure 2A, lane 3) and both S aureus and protein G-Sepharose contain no immunoreactive bands (Figure 2A, lane 2 and 2B, lane 2, respectively). To measure the total amount of TfR2 and TfR that immunoprecipitated, a series of control blots were performed (Figure 2C-D). Immunoprecipitation with TfR2 antibody and S aureus, followed by immunodetection for TfR2, shows that TfR2 can be quantitatively precipitated with this antibody (Figure 2C, lanes 1,4). Similarly, TfR can be quantitatively precipitated from lysates (Figure 2D, lanes 1,4). These results indicate that that homodimer formation is strongly preferred.
We also tested to determine if the 2 receptors had to be expressed in
the same cell in order to associate or if higher order complexes formed
only after the cells were lysed. For these experiments, we transfected
TRVb cells, a Chinese hamster ovary cell line lacking endogenous
transferrin receptor.19 A series of immunoprecipitations were carried out with TRVb cells stably transfected with
TfR (TRVb1) or TfR2 (TRVb2) (Figure
3). When cell lysates from these 2 cell lines were mixed and immunoprecipitated with anti-TfR2,
no TfR could be detected (Figure 3A). Similarly,
immunoprecipitation of a mixture of cell lysates from the 2 cell lines
with anti-TfR shows no detectable TfR2 in
the immunoprecipitates (Figure 3B). These results indicate that
the 2 homodimers generated in separate cell lines do not form higher
order complexes after solubilization.
Colocalization of TfR and TfR2 in K562 cells Confocal microscopy was used to examine the intracellular locations of TfR and TfR2. K562 cells were fixed and incubated with either a sheep anti-TfR serum or the mouse anti-TfR2 antibody, followed by appropriate fluorescent secondary antibodies (Figure 4). Prior experiments (Figures 1-2) demonstrated that TfR and TfR2 are both expressed in erythroid and liver cell lines and that they can associate to form heterodimers; yet the extent to which these proteins share similar subcellular locations was unknown. Confocal images of stained cells demonstrate that TfR and TfR2 localize in overlapping subcellular compartments. In both nonpermeabilized cells (Figure 4A-C) and cells permeabilized with Triton X-100 (Figure 4D-E,K), TfR and TfR2 have similar localizations. Both receptors are expressed on the cell surface (Figure 4 H-I) and appear to colocalize (Figure 4A-C,H-I). Inside the cells, both TfR and TfR2 localize to punctate perinuclear compartments (Figure 4E-F, J-K). Previous results from our laboratory and others demonstrated that TfR localizes to perinuclear recycling endosomes,20,21 which in combination with the present results suggests that TfR and TfR2 utilize the same endosomes and traffic together in K562 cells.
HFE and Tf do not prevent association between TfR and TfR2 Crystallographic studies of the HFE-TfR complex reveal that the HFE binding site on TfR comprises 2 helices on the outer edge of the helical domain.22 In vitro studies using the ectodomains of TfR, HFE, and Tf suggest that HFE and Tf compete with each other for binding to TfR23 and are consistent with the demonstration that site-directed mutagenesis of the HFE binding site on TfR affects Tf binding.11 We wanted to test whether the TfR2 interaction site on TfR overlapped with the region on the TfR helical domain identified as the HFE and Tf binding site. Extracts of K562 cells were incubated in the presence of 100 µM soluble recombinant HFE,10 and the amount of TfR2 associated with TfR was evaluated. At this concentration, HFE binds to TfR and competes with Tf binding. The extracts were immunoprecipitated with either anti-TfR2 and probed with anti-TfR or vice versa. No decrease in the TfR-TfR2 interaction was detected (Figure 5). Similar results were obtained upon addition of Tf (results not shown), suggesting that TfR and TfR2 do not interact with each other at the HFE-TfR interface.
TfR and TfR2 interaction under nonreducing conditions Because TfR and TfR2 each contain cysteine residues that are used for intersubunit disulfide bonds, a possible mode of association between TfR and TfR2 is the formation of covalent, disulfide-linked heterodimers (Figure 6). To determine whether covalent TfR-TfR2 heterodimers can form, cell lysates from K562 and TRVb1 cells were examined under nonreducing conditions and TfR and TfR2 were immunodetected on Western blots. A single homodimer band will be seen at approximately 186 kDa and a monomeric band will be detected at approximately 93 kDa for TfR if the receptors interact yet do not form intersubunit disulfide bonds. The migration pattern of TfR2 under nonreducing conditions is more complicated because it migrates as a doublet under reducing conditions. If TfR and TfR2 form intersubunit disulfide bonds, then TfR should be detected as a doublet with the lower molecular mass at approximately 186 kDa and little or no monomer. The evidence supports this possibility. Under nonreducing conditions a doublet of the TfR is detected in K562 cell extracts. No such doublet is seen in TRVb1 cells expressing TfR only (Figure 6).
Interaction of TfR and TfR2 in human liver tissue Because TfR and TfR2 interact with each other in K562 cells we wanted to determine whether this interaction could be detected in the liver, the tissue that has the highest concentration of TfR2 mRNA. Western blots were used to evaluate the relative levels of TfR2 in K562 cells and liver tissue. TfR2 is much more abundant in liver compared with K562 cells. The opposite is true for TfR. TfR is barely detectable in liver and easily detected in K562 cells (Figure 7A). Similar to K562 cells, small but detectable amounts of TfR2 and TfR coprecipitate, indicating that the 2 receptors interact in liver as well as K562 cells but, again, to only a limited extent.
Tf is the major iron transport protein in the blood and was originally thought to bind to and be taken up into cells via only a single receptor, TfR. Recently however, 2 more Tf binding receptors have been identified, TfR25,6 and the cubulin-megalin complex.24 These 2 receptors for Tf are tissue specific, whereas TfR appears to be expressed at least at low levels ubiquitously. TfR2 is expressed mainly in the liver and erythropoietic cells, and the cubulin-megalin complex is localized in the kidneys and rat yolk sac.24 Each receptor presumably has a different function in the regulation of iron homeostasis in the body. TfR regulates the uptake of iron into cells and itself is regulated by intracellular iron concentrations and by the proliferation status of the cells. The cubulin-megalin complex appears to be essential in the scavenging of iron, which would otherwise be excreted by the kidneys. The function of TfR2 has not been elucidated to date. It likely plays a major role in iron homeostasis in the body because mutations in this gene result in a rare form of hereditary hemochromatosis with iron accumulation in the liver, heart, and pancreas and high levels of Tf iron saturation.3 The interactions between these 3 transferrin receptors have not been examined. There is probably no interaction between the cubulin-megalin complex and TfR. They are located in different regions of the cell: the cubulin-megalin complex apically oriented, and the TfR basolaterally oriented. Here we used a cell line that endogenously expresses both TfR and TfR2 in order to study their interaction. We found the highest levels of TfR2 protein present in K562 and HEL92 erythroleukemia cell lines, with lesser amounts in HepG2 and Huh7 liver cell lines, correlating with previous work by Kawabata et al, which demonstrated high levels of TfR2 mRNA expression in erythroid precursors and liver.5,14 In K562 cells, TfR2 levels are approximately 10 times lower than TfR levels; however, the 2 receptors have similar cellular distributions, with most of both receptors in the cell interior. Being 10 times more abundant and possessing a higher affinity for Tf, TfR is responsible for the majority of iron uptake in this cell line. However, TfR2 mRNA and protein levels are more abundant than TfR mRNA and protein levels in liver and immature erythroid precursors, suggesting that TfR2 protein predominates in these cells.4,6 We have demonstrated an interaction between TfR and TfR2. Studies using coprecipitation and nonreducing SDS-PAGE show that the transferrin receptors interact and form heterodimers, and this in vitro interaction is supported by the similar colocalization of TfR and TfR2 in vivo. On the cell surface both receptors appear diffuse and in similar locations, while on the cell interior both receptors colocalize to punctate vesicles, likely the recycling endosome. These results suggest that similar mechanisms are used in the internalization and trafficking of each receptor within the cell, even though the amino acid sequences of the cytoplasmic domains of each receptor share no similarity other than both containing tyrosine-based internalization motifs. HFE and Tf do not prevent TfR-TfR2
association, suggesting TfR2 binds to TfR
somewhere other than the common HFE and Tf binding site on
TfR. Another possibility is that TfR and
TfR2 formed mixed heterodimers. This suggestion is
supported by the observation of the mixed covalent heterodimers and by
the fact that many of the residues at the crystallographically
determined TfR dimerization interface are conserved in
TfR2 (Table 1).
How the interaction between these 2 transferrin receptors affects their function remains to be studied. The subunits of TfR and TfR2 do not interact equally well with each other. TfR and TfR2 preferentially form homodimers, and only a small percentage form heterodimers. From crystallographic studies, HFE interacts with TfR via a hydrophobic region on the ectodomain of the receptor, competing with Tf for binding to TfR.9,23 Because TfR2 is not regulated in response to changes in cellular iron levels and does not interact with HFE, the TfR-TfR2 interaction could function as a potential mechanism to regulate iron uptake in unique ways, perhaps by utilizing signaling pathways. If this were the case, then the heterodimers could be potentially important in regulating signaling. Additional studies are required to fully understand the role of TfR2 and the relationship of TfR2 with TfR.
We would like to thank Dr Tim McGraw, Cornell Medical College for the TRVb and the TRVb1 cell lines; Drs Kawabata and Koeffler for the human TfR2 plasmid; Anthony P. West for the TfR2 used in the immunizations; Thomas O'Hare and Greg Wiens for critical comments on the manuscript; and Aeisha D. Robb and Marianne Wessling-Resnick for insightful discussions.
Submitted September 9, 2002; accepted October 16, 2002.
Prepublished online as Blood First Edition Paper, October 24, 2002; DOI 10.1182/blood-2002-09-2742.
Supported by National Institutes of Health grant DK 40608 (C.A.E.) and Howard Hughes Medical Center (P.J.B.).
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. section 1734.
Reprints: Caroline A. Enns, Department of Cell and Developmental Biology L215, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR 97201-3098; e-mail: ennsca{at}ohsu.edu.
1. Aisen P, Enns C, Wessling-Resnick M. Chemistry and biology of eukaryotic iron metabolism. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2001;33:940-959[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 2. Levy JE, Jin O, Fujiwara Y, Kuo F, Andrews NC. Transferrin receptor is necessary for development of erythrocytes and the nervous system. Nat Genet. 1999;21:396-399[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 3. Camaschella C, Roetto A, Cali A, et al. The gene TFR2 is mutated in a new type of haemochromatosis mapping to 7q22. Nat Genet. 2000;25:14-15[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
4.
Kawabata H, Germain RS, Vuong PT, Nakamaki T, Said JW, Koeffler HP.
Transferrin receptor 2-alpha supports cell growth both in iron-chelated cultured cells and in vivo.
J Biol Chem.
2000;275:16618-16625
5.
Kawabata H, Yang R, Hirama T, et al.
Molecular cloning of transferrin receptor 2: a new member of the transferrin receptor-like family.
J Biol Chem.
1999;274:20826-20832
6.
Fleming RE, Migas MC, Holden CC, et al.
Transferrin receptor 2: continued expression in mouse liver in the face of iron overload and in hereditary hemochromatosis.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
2000;97:2214-2219
7.
Parkkila S, Waheed A, Britton RS, et al.
Association of the transferrin receptor in human placenta with HFE, the protein defective in hereditary hemochromatosis.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
1997;94:13198-13202
8.
Feder JN, Penny DM, Irrinki A, et al.
The hemochromatosis gene product complexes with the transferrin receptor and lowers its affinity for ligand binding.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
1998;95:1472-1477 9. Lebron JA, Bennett MJ, Vaughn DE, et al. Crystal structure of the hemochromatosis protein HFE and characterization of its interaction with transferrin receptor. Cell. 1998;93:111-123[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 10. Lebron JA, Bjorkman PJ. The transferrin receptor binding site on HFE, the class I MHC-related protein mutated in hereditary hemochromatosis. J Mol Biol. 1999;289:1109-1118[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 11. West AP Jr, Giannetti AM, Herr AB, et al. Mutational analysis of the transferrin receptor reveals overlapping HFE and transferrin binding sites. J Mol Biol. 2001;313:385-397[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
12.
West AP Jr, Bennett MJ, Sellers VM, Andrews NC, Enns CA, Bjorkman PJ.
Comparison of the interactions of transferrin receptor and transferrin receptor 2 with transferrin and the hereditary hemochromatosis protein HFE.
J Biol Chem.
2000;275:38135-38138 13. Gatter KC, Brown G, Trowbridge IS, Woolston R-E, Mason DY. Transferrin receptors in human tissues: their distribution and possible clinical relevance. J Clin Path. 1983:539-545.
14.
Kawabata H, Germain RS, Ikezoe T, et al.
Regulation of expression of murine transferrin receptor 2.
Blood.
2001;98:1949-1954
15.
Sanchez LM, Lopez OC, Bjorkman PJ.
Biochemical characterization and crystalization of human Zn-alpha2-glycoprotein, a soluble class I major histocompatibility complex homolog.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
1997;94:4626-4630
16.
Rutledge EA, Green FA, Enns CA.
Generation of the soluble transferrin receptor requires cycling through an endosomal compartment.
J Biol Chem.
1994;269:31864-31868 17. Laemmli UK. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature. 1970;227:680-685[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
18.
Reckhow CL, Enns CA.
Characterization of the transferrin receptor in tunicamycin-treated A431 cells.
J Biol Chem.
1988;263:7297-7301
19.
McGraw T, Greenfield L, Maxfield FR.
Functional expression of the human transferrin receptor cDNA in Chinese hamster ovary cells deficient in endogenous transferrin receptor.
J Cell Biol.
1987;105:207-214
20.
Enns CA, Larrick JW, Suomalainen H, Schroder J, Sussman HH.
Co-migration and internalization of transferrin and its receptor on K562 cells.
J Cell Biol.
1983;97:579-585 21. Yamashiro DJ, Tycko B, Fluss SR, Maxfield FR. Segregation of transferrin to a mildly acidic (pH 6.5) para-Golgi compartment in the recycling pathway. Cell. 1984;37:789-800[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 22. Bennett MJ, Lebron JA, Bjorkman PJ. Crystal structure of the hereditary haemochromatosis protein HFE complexed with transferrin receptor. Nature. 2000;403:46-53[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 23. Lebron JA, West AP Jr, Bjorkman PJ. The hemochromatosis protein HFE competes with transferrin for binding to the transferrin receptor. J Mol Biol. 1999;294:239-245[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
24.
Kozyraki R, Fyfe J, Verroust PJ, et al.
Megalin-dependent cubilin-mediated endocytosis is a major pathway for the apical uptake of transferrin in polarized epithelia.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
2001;98:12491-12496 25. Brunger AT, Adams PD, Clore GM, et al. Crystallography & NMR system: a new software suite for macromolecular structure determination. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 1998;54 (pt 5):905-921[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
26.
Lawrence CM, Ray S, Babyonyshev M, Galluser R, Borhani DW, Harrison SC.
Crystal structure of the ectodomain of human transferrin receptor.
Science.
1999;286:779-782
© 2003 by The American Society of Hematology.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
  C. E. Herbison, K. Thorstensen, A. C. G. Chua, R. M. Graham, P. Leedman, J. K. Olynyk, and D. Trinder The role of transferrin receptor 1 and 2 in transferrin-bound iron uptake in human hepatoma cells Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, December 1, 2009; 297(6): C1567 - C1575. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Chen, M. Chloupkova, J. Gao, T. L. Chapman-Arvedson, and C. A. Enns HFE Modulates Transferrin Receptor 2 Levels in Hepatoma Cells via Interactions That Differ from Transferrin Receptor 1-HFE Interactions J. Biol. Chem., December 21, 2007; 282(51): 36862 - 36870. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. B. Johnson, J. Chen, N. Murchison, F. A. Green, and C. A. Enns Transferrin Receptor 2: Evidence for Ligand-induced Stabilization and Redirection to a Recycling Pathway Mol. Biol. Cell, March 1, 2007; 18(3): 743 - 754. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. C. Moura, M. Arcos-Fajardo, A. Gdoura, V. Leroy, C. Sadaka, N. Mahlaoui, Y. Lepelletier, F. Vrtovsnik, E. Haddad, M. Benhamou, et al. Engagement of Transferrin Receptor by Polymeric IgA1: Evidence for a Positive Feedback Loop Involving Increased Receptor Expression and Mesangial Cell Proliferation in IgA Nephropathy J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., September 1, 2005; 16(9): 2667 - 2676. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 X. Xu, H. L. Persson, and D. R. Richardson Molecular Pharmacology of the Interaction of Anthracyclines with Iron Mol. Pharmacol., August 1, 2005; 68(2): 261 - 271. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. Decot, G. Woerly, M. Loyens, S. Loiseau, B. Quatannens, M. Capron, and D. Dombrowicz Heterogeneity of Expression of IgA Receptors by Human, Mouse, and Rat Eosinophils J. Immunol., January 15, 2005; 174(2): 628 - 635. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. B. Johnson and C. A. Enns Diferric transferrin regulates transferrin receptor 2 protein stability Blood, December 15, 2004; 104(13): 4287 - 4293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Robb and M. Wessling-Resnick Regulation of transferrin receptor 2 protein levels by transferrin Blood, December 15, 2004; 104(13): 4294 - 4299. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. D. Robb, M. Ericsson, and M. Wessling-Resnick Transferrin receptor 2 mediates a biphasic pattern of transferrin uptake associated with ligand delivery to multivesicular bodies Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, December 1, 2004; 287(6): C1769 - C1775. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. C. Moura, M. Arcos-Fajardo, C. Sadaka, V. Leroy, M. Benhamou, J. Novak, F. Vrtovsnik, E. Haddad, K. R. Chintalacharuvu, and R. C. Monteiro Glycosylation and Size of IgA1 Are Essential for Interaction with Mesangial Transferrin Receptor in IgA Nephropathy J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., March 1, 2004; 15(3): 622 - 634. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
| Copyright © 2003 by American Society of Hematology Online ISSN: 1528-0020 | |||||||||
Top
Abstract
Introduction
subtype. Antibodies to
TfR2 did not interact with the ectodomain of
TfR by either Western blot or ELISA analysis. The
opposite was also true.
