Thursday, March 29, 2012

Myosin II and Myosin Light Chain Kinase in Leukocytes from Cancer Patients



March 29, 2012

So, here we go.  The first installment in this series is a manuscript about non-muscle myosins found in human leukocytes.  This paper showed that PMN and monocytes from patients with head and neck cancer contain myosin II and also MLCK.  Myosin levels were decreased in leukocytes from cancer patients compared to those from normal subjects, whereas MLCK levels were similar in PMN and monocytes from both patient groups.  After in vitro exposure to formylpeptide chemoattractant, myosin levels decreased significantly in the PMN and monocytes obtained from normal subjects but were not altered in cancer patient leukocytes.

This suggested that myosin was abnormally regulated in cancer patient leukocytes and that leukocytes from those patients may have been 'pre-activated' in situ.  Such pre-activation might indicate that the host had been actively repulsing an advanced cancer.  However, the long-recognized chemotactic inhibition seen in the leukocytes from such patients suggests just the opposite, that the leukocytes had been activated in situ, had then expended their efforts, had down-regulated their surface receptors, and then became more or less refractile to further stimulation both in situ and in vitro.

Below is the full paper and a link to the PDF:

Myosin II and Myosin Light Chain Kinase in Neutrophils and Monocytes from Cancer Patients


 
Myosin II and Myosin Light Chain Kinase in

Neutrophils and Monocytes from Cancer Patients
 
by
 
Robert J. Walter, Tzu-Chieh Chao 1, Amelia H. Janeczek 1,

John R. Danielson, and Hernan M. Reyes


Department of Surgery, Cook County Hospital and Hektoen Institute for Medical Research, Chicago, IL

1 Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL


Address all correspondence to:
           
Robert J. Walter, Ph.D.           
Department of Surgery
Hektoen Institute for Medical Research
625 South Wood Street
Chicago, IL   60612

Telephone:  (312) 633-7237    
FAX:          (312) 732-3102

Running Title:  Myosin in Tumor Patient Leukocytes

Keywords:   chemotaxis, neutrophils, monocytes, myosin, myosin light chain kinase, cancer,  polarization

Abbreviations

cAMP, 3',5'-cyclic adenosine monophosphate; CT, control; CA, cancer; PMN, polymorphonuclear leukocyte; MLCK, myosin light chain kinase; BSA, bovine serum albumin; FITC, fluorescein isothiocyanate; FMLP, N-formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine; HEPES, N-2-hydroxyethylpiperazine-N-2'-ethanesulfonic acid; HBS, Hank's balanced salt solution



ABSTRACT

In vitro chemotaxis of monocytes obtained from tumor patients is often severely depressed but the mechanism of this inhibition is not known.  The actomyosin cytoskeleton is thought to play a pivotal role in generating the forces required for cells to perform activities such as chemotaxis.  This study has employed flow cytometry and fluorescence microscopy to examine two components of the actomyosin machinery, i.e., myosin II and myosin light chain kinase (MLCK) in unstimulated and in formylpeptide-stimulated neutrophils and monocytes isolated from normal (CT) and cancer patient (CA) peripheral blood samples.  Decreased amounts of myosin were observed in unstimulated CA neutrophils and monocytes compared to unstimulated CT leukocytes.  Upon stimulation with formylpeptide chemoattractant, the amount of myosin detected in CT leukocytes decreased markedly but in CA leukocytes was altered very little.  Similar amounts of MLCK were observed in unstimulated CT and CA leukocytes and in formylpeptide-stimulated cells.  In the fluorescence microscope, adherent monocytes and PMN showed diffuse cytoplasmic myosin and MLCK fluorescence throughout the cytoplasm with some increase in intensity at the trailing end (uropod) in formylpeptide-stimulated cells.  Since the actomyosin cytoskeleton is intricately involved in leukocyte chemotaxis, alterations in the cytoskeleton may dramatically affect cell motility.  CA leukocytes exhibited decreased baseline myosin levels and a vastly different response to formylpeptide stimulation as compared to CT leukocytes.  Unstimulated CA monocytes also exhibited increased spontaneous polarization but FMLP-stimulated polarization was inhibited.  These cytoskeletal alterations and changes in the response of CA leukocytes to formylpeptide stimulation may result in decreased chemotaxis by these cells.


INTRODUCTION
           
The actomyosin cytoskeleton is thought to play a prominent role in nonmuscle cell motility.  In leukocytes and single cell eukaryotes such as Dictyostelium discoideum and Acanthamoeba castellanii, cytoplasmic actin and myosin (myosin II or conventional myosin) have been studied extensively and are known to generate the forces that drive chemotaxis (1,2).  Two types of models have been developed to describe the mechanism of force generation in these cells.  The first of these is the actin thin filament-based model which focuses upon the extensive actin remodeling known to occur during chemotactic activation.  Within seconds of exposure to a chemoattractant, extensive actin polymerization occurs followed over the next few minutes by a much slower depolymerization (3,4).  While these events are occurring, actin-rich pseudopods are extended by the cell and, in time, the entire cell becomes polarized structurally with actin concentrated in both the lamellipod and uropod (4-7).  This model proposes that the formation and breakdown of a three dimensional actin lattice is responsible for the cytoplasmic protrusive and contractile activities associated with cell locomotion (2).  The regulation of actin polymerization and depolymerization is thought to involve a range of known actin binding proteins (filamin, acumentin, profilin, gelsolin, etc.) and cytoplasmic calcium (2,8,9). 
           
Myosin II, one of these actin binding proteins, is central in the second model of force generation, the myosin thick filament-based model.  According to this, after chemotactic activation and concurrent with actin remodeling, myosin heavy chain is transiently dephosphorylated and myosin light chain is phosphorylated (10,11) triggering myosin heavy chain assembly into thick filaments (2,12,13).  Subsequently, myosin heavy chain phosphorylation occurs, impeding further assembly of myosin thick filaments (14,15), and leading to depolymerization of existing myosin filaments (16).  During thick filament  assembly in Dictyostelium, myosin shifts in position from the endoplasm into the cortical cytoplasm underlying the plasma membrane and also becomes associated with the posterior uropod (15,17).  In lower eukaryotes and 3T3 fibroblasts, myosin II is largely excluded from the lamellipod during periods of intense membrane ruffling (16,18,19) but in motile leukocytes and HeLa cells, myosin was localized in the lamellipod not the uropod (20).  The reason for this discrepancy is not known.  Nonetheless, when colocalized in the uropod, it is thought that myosin thick filaments may interact with actin by means of myosin ATPase to generate the forces required to drive cell migration and assist in tail retraction (13,21).   These actomyosin interactions are probably regulated by calcium (22) and the phosphorylation of the myosin light chain by myosin light chain kinase (MLCK) (23-25). 

The relative importance of myosins I and II in cell locomotion has been the subject of much recent study.  Genetically altered Dictyostelium deficient in myosin light or heavy chains exhibited markedly decreased rates of locomotion and defective pseudopod formation (26).  In Acanthamoeba, microinjection of monoclonal anti-myosin II slows but does not stop locomotion (19).  Similarly, myosin I deficient Dictyostelium exhibited slowed chemotaxis and decreased phagocytic rates, but no other phenotypic changes (27).  Thus, in lower eukaryotes, it seems likely that both forms of myosin are required for normal cell motility.  However, in vertebrate leukocytes, no role for myosin I can be assigned because it has yet to be demonstrated in these cells (28).  It is presumed that the activation sequence described above is necessary to bring about normal chemotaxis and that alterations in any of the steps of this sequence may result in defective or reduced chemotaxis.  A severe defect in monocyte chemotaxis has been demonstrated in many cancer patients, but the cause of this defect is not known (29,30).  Monocytes, macrophages, and neutrophils are thought to participate directly in tumor destruction (31,32) and studies of experimental animal tumor models have consistently demonstrated that these leukocytes are potent anti-tumor effectors (33).  Monocyte and neutrophil accumulation at sites of tumor growth is accomplished by means of chemotaxis and this response appears to be an essential aspect of the antitumor response (34).  Due to the significance of the leukocyte cytoskeleton in chemotactic activation, we have examined cell polarization as well as the myosin II and MLCK content and distribution in normal leukocytes and in leukocytes from patients with advanced cancer.  As compared to normal leukocytes, unstimulated PMN and monocytes from these patients expressed reduced levels of myosin, monocytes showed reduced cell polarization, and increased spontaneous polarization.  After formylpeptide stimulation, normal PMN and monocytes exhibited reduced myosin levels, but leukocytes from cancer patients exhibited no change in myosin content and reduced cell polarization.  This abnormal modulation of myosin in cancer patient leukocytes may contribute to the chemotactic and polarization defect observed in leukocytes from these patients.


MATERIALS AND METHODS

Selection of Patients

Patients selected for this study were recently diagnosed as having advanced tumors (sarcoma or carcinoma) but were not yet receiving chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or other medications at the time of venipuncture.  Non-cancer patient controls were selected to give age and sex distributions comparable to the cancer patient group. 

Cells and Incubation Conditions

PMN and mononuclear leukocytes were isolated from venous blood collected in EDTA or heparin as described previously (30,35).  Erythrocytes were sedimented at 1xg in 1.25% dextran (pyrogen-free) and the leukocyte-rich plasma drawn off.  Two ml of plasma were diluted 1:1 with a buffer (HBS) containing 140 mM NaCl, 10 mM KCl, 10 mM HEPES, 5mM glucose, 2 mg/ml bovine serum albumin (BSA), pH 7.4 and layered onto one ml of Lymphocyte Separation Medium (Organon Teknika, Durham, NC).  This gradient was then centrifuged at 500xg for 5 min at room temperature, the mononuclear cells at the interface removed, and the PMN pellet resuspended.  PMN were rinsed in HBS containing 2 mM EDTA and contaminating erythrocytes lysed by hypotonic shock.  The mononuclear fraction was diluted with 5 ml of HBS with 2 mM EDTA and 2.5% dextran and centrifuged for 5 min at 500xg.  The platelet-rich supernatant was removed and the dextran centrifugation procedure repeated twice on the resuspended cell pellet.  Cells were resuspended in HBS containing 1 mM MgCl2 and 0.2 mM CaCl2, counted using a hemacytometer, and stored until use at 4ºC.  Differential counts were also performed on these cell preparations. 

Chemotaxis Assays

Cells were tested for their chemotactic capability in multiwell chemotaxis chambers as previously described (30,35).  Briefly, formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine (FMLP) over a range of concentrations (10”-11M to 10”-6M) was placed into the lower wells of a 48 well microchemotaxis chamber (Neuroprobe, Cabin John, MD) and purified neutrophils or monocytes were loaded into the upper wells (25 µl; 20,000 cells).  A polyvinylpyrrolidone-free polycarbonate filter (Nucleopore, Pleasanton, CA) with 5 µm pores separated the upper from the lower wells and the chamber was incubated at 37ºC in a humidified incubator for 2 hours.  Samples were run in triplicate and nuclei in 5 (400X) microscope fields from each well were counted.  Monocytes from all tumor patients studied here exhibited a marked chemotaxis defect (65-81% inhibition) compared to non-cancer controls.

Polarization Assay

Patient and control monocytes suspended in HBS/BSA at 37ºC in siliconized tubes were incubated for various times in the presence or absence of FMLP.  At the completion of each incubation, buffered paraformaldehyde was added to a final concentration of 3%, cells were stained with Hoechst 33258 to aid in cell identification, and monocyte polarization determined for 100 cells using light microscopy.  Monocytes were considered to be polarized if they exhibited a change in the normal, rounded morphology such they became elongated or triangular in shape or exhibited asymmetric lamelipodial extension.

Antibodies and Staining Procedures

Cells were exposed to either buffer alone or to FMLP for increasing periods of time (1 to 10 min) at 37ºC.  For PMN, a uniform field of 1 nM FMLP was employed as stimulant whereas 0.1 nM FMLP was used for monocytes.  Antimyosin and anti-MLCK antibodies were the generous gift of Dr. P. deLanerolle (University of Illinois at Chicago) and were used as described previously with some modifications (36).  Unstimulated or FMLP-treated cells were fixed at 4ºC in 2% paraformaldehyde in phosphate buffered saline (PBS), washed, and then lysed in acetone (-20ºC).  After washing in 50% ethanol, autofluorescence and unreacted fixative were quenched using sodium borohydride (1 mg/ml) in 50% ethanol.  Cells were then rinsed in PBS containing 1% normal goat serum and 0.1% BSA and non-specific binding blocked using 5% normal goat serum.  Cells were then reacted with primary antibody for 1 hr at room temperature.  Either rabbit anti-human platelet myosin serum (1:40 dilution) or affinity purified rabbit anti-turkey gizzard MLCK (1:100 dilution) were used as primary antibodies.  Anti-human platelet myosin antibody reacts strongly with mammalian and avian non-muscle myosin and to a lesser degree with mammalian and avian smooth muscle myosin (37).  Polyclonal rabbit anti-turkey gizzard MLCK antibody reacts with MLCK of smooth muscle but not with actin, myosin, tropomyosin, alpha-actinin, or filamin (36).  Subsequent to this incubation, cells were washed and further incubated in FITC-goat anti-rabbit IgG (1:60 dilution; Cappel) for 1 hr.  Cells were then washed using three changes of PBS.  All buffers and antibodies were passed through a 0.22 µm pore size micropore filter before use to remove aggregates.  For flow cytometry, some cell preparations were stained with phycoerythrin-conjugated MY-9 only (Coulter Immunodiagnostics, Hialeah, FL).   MY-9 is a monoclonal antibody that binds to normal peripheral blood monocytes but not to granulocytes, erythrocytes, platelets, or lymphocytes (38). 


Flow Cytometry

Stained cells were filtered through nylon mesh (25 µm pore size; TETKO Inc., Elmsford, NY) and analyzed using an EPICS C flow cytometer (Coulter Electronics, Hialeah, FL) equipped with a 500 mW argon ion laser emitting at 488 nm.  Forward-angle and right-angle light scatter, fluorescein (535 nm), and phycoerythrin (580 nm) fluorescence were acquired for at least 5000 cells in each experimental group.  Fluorescence was collected using a three-decade logarithmic amplifier.

Some cells were fixed in 2% buffered paraformaldehyde and stained with either phycoerythrin-conjugated MY-9 (Coulter Immunology, Hialeah, FL; diluted 1:30) or with phycoerythrin-conjugated nonspecific mouse immunoglobulin (diluted 1:30).   MY-9 was used to aid in determining the exact monocyte and neutrophil gate settings and to ascertain the proportion of monocytes counted in the monocyte gate. 


Polarization Assay

The time course and concentration dependence of the monocyte polarization response was assessed for monocytes suspended in HBS in siliconized tubes.  Cells were either exposed to a range of concentrations of FMLP for 20 min at 37ºC, to 1 nM FMLP for 0 to 60 min, or to buffer alone for 0 to 60 min.  Incubations were terminated by the addition of paraformaldehyde to a final concentration of 4%, and cells were stained with Hoechst 33258.  Monocytes were identified by nuclear morphology and size using fluorescence microscopy and cell polarization evaluated for 100 cells at each data point.  Cells were considered to be polarized if they exhibited a distinct shape change including triangular shape, asymmetric protuberance formation, or lamellipodial extension.


Fluorescence Microscopy and Photography

For fluorescence microscopy, purified PMN and monocytes were remixed and allowed to adhere to clean glass coverslips at 37ºC for 5 min.  After fixation, extraction, and staining as described above, labeled leukocytes were further stained with Hoechst 33258 (10 µg/ml) in PBS for 10 min at room temperature.  After washing, cover slips were mounted on slides in PBS with 90% glycerol containing paraphenylenediamine (1 mg/ml) (39).  These preparations were examined using a Nikon Optiphot microscope with a Leitz 100 W mercury epiiluminator and photographed using Kodak Tri-X Pan (ASA 400) or Ektachrome (ASA 1600).


Statistical Evaluation of Data

Mean channel numbers for each time or treatment were treated as individual parametric values and groups of these values were compared using unpaired t-tests.  Chi-square was employed to evaluate non-parametric cell polarization data.  Mean channel numbers are the average of three separate experiments (mean ± SD) performed on blood samples from different CT and CA subjects as starting material.  A probability value < 0.05 was considered significant.


RESULTS

Myosin Redistributes into the Uropod upon FMLP Stimulation

Unstimulated, adherent CT leukocytes were generally uniformly spread except for a few cells (< 5%) that were spontaneously polarized.  Antimyosin staining disclosed diffuse cytoplasmic fluorescence in both rounded and spontaneously polarized cells (Figure 1a).  Increased amounts of fluorescence were seen in the central regions of the cells but very little fluorescence was associated with the cortical regions of the cell.  Unstimulated PMN and monocytes from CA patients were similar in overall appearance to CT leukocytes, but exhibited somewhat decreased levels of fluorescence (Figures 1b, c).  In all groups, monocytes displayed less intense fluorescence than did PMN.

Formylpeptide-stimulated CT leukocytes were structurally polarized exhibiting a distinct leading lamellipod and trailing uropod (Figures 1d-g).  Antimyosin staining was more concentrated beneath the plasma membrane than that seen in unstimulated cells.  PMN showed distinct concentrations of fluorescence in the trailing uropod region of polarized cells and monocytes showed slight increases in the the amount of fluorescence in the uropod.  Formylpeptide-stimulated PMN and monocytes from CA patients (Figure 1f, g) were similar in overall appearance to stimulated CT leukocytes (Figure 1d, e), but in general exhibited decreased levels of fluorescence.  Differences in fluorescence intensity were clearly evident in specimens examined in the flow cytometer.


MLCK is Diffusely Distributed

Unstimulated, adherent CT and CA PMN and monocytes stained for MLCK exhibited faint diffuse cytoplasmic fluorescence (Figures 2a-d).  Formylpeptide-stimulated CT and CA leukocytes displayed MLCK staining that was in most cases diffuse throughout the cytoplasm, but in some cells was unmistakably concentrated in the uropod region (Figures 2e, f). 

Myosin Staining Differs in CT and CA Leukocytes

Phycoerythrin-conjugated MY-9 staining was used to confirm the location and cell type found within the monocyte gate (Figure 3).  This was necessary because the extraction protocol used prior to staining for myosin or MLCK resulted in less discrete monocyte distributions as seen in scatterplots (right angle versus forward light scatter).  MY-9 staining of the gated monocyte population revealed that 85% of the cells were monocytes.  Due to their low cytoplasmic granularity, the remainder were presumed to be large lymphocytes.  This same proportion of monocytes was seen in both CA and CT samples. 

Unstimulated CT PMN stained for myosin were seen as discreet unimodal distributions.  As a group (Table 1), unstimulated CT PMN had an average mean channel number of 80 ± 4 (Figure 4) whereas unstimulated PMN from CA patients had a mean channel number of 48 ± 9 (p < 0.005 compared to unstimulated CT).  Upon exposure to 1 nM FMLP, the mean channel number observed for CT PMN declined to 63 ± 5 after 1 minute of exposure and to 61 ± 5 after 4 minutes of exposure to FMLP.  In contrast, under these same conditions the mean channel number for CA PMN increased to 49 ± 10 and 53 ± 11, respectively.

Unstimulated CT monocytes stained for myosin were seen as broad unimodal distributions having a mean channel number of 77 ± 4 whereas unstimulated monocytes from CA patients were seen as broad unimodal distributions having an average mean channel number of 22 ± 6.  Upon exposure to 0.1 nM FMLP, the mean channel number observed for CT monocytes declined to 47 ± 3 after 1 minute of exposure and to 30 ± 5 after 4 minutes of exposure to FMLP.  Under these same conditions the mean channel number for CA monocytes remained virtually unchanged at 21 ± 5 and 20 ± 3, respectively.


MLCK Staining is Similar in CT and CA Leukocytes

Unstimulated CT PMN stained for MLCK (Table 2) were seen as a unimodal distributions having a mean channel number of 63 ± 10, whereas unstimulated PMN from CA patients displayed mean channel numbers of 62 ±10.  Upon exposure to 1 nM FMLP, the mean channel number observed for CT PMN was 67 ± 14 after 1 minute of exposure to FMLP and 64 ± 17 after 4 minutes.  Under these same conditions, the mean channel number for CA PMN increased slightly to 63 ±10 and 65 ±10, respectively. 

Unstimulated CT monocytes stained for MLCK were seen as a broad unimodal peak having a mean channel number of 61 ± 3 whereas unstimulated monocytes from CA patients exhibited unimodal peaks with an average mean channel number of 55 ± 3.  Upon exposure to 0.1 nM FMLP, the mean channel number observed for CT monocytes increased to 70 ± 3 and 72 ± 2 after 1 and 4 minutes of exposure to FMLP, respectively.  Under these same conditions, the mean channel number for CA monocytes increased to 62 ± 5 and 65 ± 3, respectively.


Spontaneous and FMLP-Stimulated Cell Polarization is Altered in CA Monocytes 

CT and CA patient monocytes were exposed to buffer alone or to different concentrations of FMLP for 20 min at 37ºC (Figure 5).  In the presence of FMLP, polarization was significantly reduced in CA as compared to CT monocytes with maximal polarization evident at 10-9 M FMLP.  However, in buffer alone, polarization was significantly increased in CA as compared to CT monocytes.
           
As seen in Figure 6, CT and CA patient monocytes were incubated with 10-9 M FMLP or in buffer alone for times ranging from 0 to 60 min.  In buffer alone, the fraction of polarized CA monocytes was significantly greater at all times (except 0 time) than that seen for CT monocytes.  FMLP-stimulated CA monocytes exhibited significantly decreased polarization for incubation times between 5 and 30 min but significantly increased polarization after 60 min of incubation as compared to that seen for CT monocytes.


DISCUSSION    

We have examined myosin staining, MLCK staining, and cell polarization in unstimulated and formylpeptide-stimulated PMN and monocytes isolated from CT and CA patients.  We have observed:  1)  decreased myosin staining in PMN and monocytes from CA patients as compared to leukocytes taken from CT patients, 2)  that stimulation with formylpeptide decreases myosin staining in CT leukocytes but not in leukocytes from CA patients, 3)  comparable levels of MLCK in CT and CA leukocytes, and similar levels of MLCK staining in both cell groups when stimulated with formylpeptide, 4)  that unstimulated CA monocytes exhibited increased polarization but that formylpeptide-stimulated polarization was inhibited as compared to CT monocytes.

Myosin staining of monocytes (CT and CA) was less intense than that of PMN (CT and CA) as seen in the fluorescence microscope and in the flow cytometer.  After formylpeptide stimulation of CT patient leukocytes, distinct morphological alterations became evident.  Myosin staining became more concentrated beneath the plasma membrane especially in the uropod region and markedly reduced amounts of myosin staining were seen.  Amounts of MLCK staining remained unchanged but staining was sometimes concentrated in the uropod.  Previous reports on the distribution of myosin in chemotactically-activated cells are somewhat contradictory and there have been few reports on myosin distributions in higher eukaryotic cells such as leukocytes.  Most of the recent studies in lower eukaryotes have shown myosin II within cellular protrusions or in the endoplasm but have not described its transcellular location (anterior, middle, or posterior) in the motile cell. 

In unstimulated cells (see Table 3), myosin II is found diffusely distributed in the endoplasm and often absent from the cell cortex.  In chemotactically activated amoebae, myosin II is consistently found in the uropod and the cortical cytoplasm.  Similarly, myosin II co-caps with surface Ig on human lymphocytes to a region analogous to the uropod of a motile cell and is absent or depleted from the leading edge of carcinoma cells.  Using fluorescence photobleaching recovery, DeBiasio et al. (40) have also found that myosin is present but immobile in the leading edge of motile 3T3 cells.  However, in rabbit PMN responding to a gradient of complement fragments, myosin II was localized to the lamellipod (20).  Our findings differ from those of Valerius et al. in that we find myosin most often in the uropod of human PMN exposed to FMLP.  The contradiction may be due to differences in cell types, species, chemoattractants, or methods of applying the attractant (yeast-generated gradient versus uniform field).  However, our findings concur closely with those obtained with lower eukaryotes, lymphocytes, and cultured fibroblasts and therefore serve to clarify our understanding of myosin distribution in a range of motile cell types.

The quantitative changes in myosin levels observed here during leukocyte activation, i.e. decreases in myosin staining, were somewhat unexpected in view of some previous reports.  White et al. (41) have shown for rabbit PMN that the levels of myosin associated with the Triton-insoluble cytoskeleton remained unchanged when they were assessed 15 seconds after FMLP stimulation and Feinstein et al. (42) have shown a substantial thrombin-induced increase in the myosin content of the Triton-insoluble platelet cytoskeleton.  However, the present study has utilized preparative and analytic procedures that differ considerably from those employed in the aforementioned studies.  Most notably the time of exposure to FMLP was greater here (1 and 4 min) as compared to the study of White et al. (15 seconds) and the fixation/extraction procedures employed here involved chemical fixatives and organic solvents (ethanol, acetone) rather than detergents as were used by others.  On the other hand, Dharmawardhare et al. (16) have shown that the myosin II content of the Dictyostelium cytoskeleton peaks at 25-30 seconds after cAMP stimulation and reaches a minimum, about 50% below baseline levels, 40 seconds after cAMP stimulation.  Levels of cytoskeleton-associated myosin remained significantly below baseline throughout the remainder of the 70 second time course studied there.  The myosin content of human leukocytes seen in the present study at both 1 and 4 minutes after FMLP stimulation was correspondingly low.

In Acanthamoeba, Baines and Korn (43) have shown that plasma membrane associated myosin IC is labile to saponin treatment, whereas contractile vacuole associated myosin IC is preserved.  Thus, it seems that myosin I may be more or less extractable depending on its subcellular location.  Baines and Korn have suggested that this differential vulnerability to extraction may be related to the extent to which myosin interacts with membrane lipids.  In this study, we are localizing and quantitating myosin II, not myosin IC, but the principle of differential extractability or solubility may also apply here.  Such differential extractability may be related to putative interactions between myosin II and membrane lipids or to the state of myosin phosphorylation.  When myosin heavy chain is phosphorylated, myosin thick filaments depolymerize, and myosin may be lost from the cytoskeleton (16,44).  Chemoattractant stimulation of leukocytes from CT patients may cause myosin heavy chain to be phosphorylated or otherwise redistributed and less tightly associated with the cell constituents that are preserved under the fixation/extraction conditions used here.
We have also observed that MLCK expression remained relatively unchanged after FMLP stimulation.  This suggests that the markedly decreased myosin staining observed after FMLP stimulation was not simply the result of increased nonspecific protein extraction during specimen preparation.  The decrease in myosin staining seen in CT PMN and monocytes upon FMLP exposure appears to be selective for myosin. 

In unstimulated leukocytes from CA patients, we have observed dramatically reduced myosin staining compared to that seen in unstimulated leukocytes from CT patients.  On the other hand, myosin in CA leukocytes was virtually unaffected by exposure to FMLP such that these cells did not exhibit the expected decrease in myosin staining upon FMLP stimulation.  Since myosin phosphorylation apparently determines the extent of the association between myosin and the cytoskeleton, these findings suggest that myosin phosphorylation/ dephosphorylation may be abnormal in CA leukocytes.  We hypothesize that leukocytes from CA patients may be pre-activated by exposure to circulating factors present in the blood and this may reduce cytoskeleton-associated myosin even before in vitro stimulation with FMLP.  Upon addition of FMLP, myosin levels remain unchanged because cells had become refractory to further stimulation. 

As further evidence of this, CA monocyte samples not pretreated with FMLP (i.e., unstimulated) exhibit increased numbers of polarized cells as compared to unstimulated CT monocytes.  Furthermore, CA monocyte samples stimulated by FMLP exhibit decreased numbers of polarized cells at all times less than 40 min and at all FMLP concentrations used here.  Others have studied cell polarization in normal monocytes treated with CA patient effusions (45), tumor-derived low molecular weight factors (46), and fragments of retroviral p15E peptide analogues such as the peptide LDLLFL (47), but little data on polarization in CA patient leukocytes has been reported.  Results from previous studies are generally in agreement with those described here.  Interestingly, Cianciolo et al. (45) showed that cancer patient pleural or peritoneal effusions contained high molecular weight factors that were stimulatory and low molecular weight factors that were inhibitory to normal monocyte polarization.  The data presented here suggest that similar effects may be evident in leukocytes isolated from CA patients.  The high levels of polarization evident in unstimulated CA monocytes indicate that these cells are pre-activated as they are obtained from the patient.  This further suggests that the reductions in cell polarization seen in FMLP-stimulated CA monocytes may result from desensitization of these cells toward FMLP.

The cellular mechanism of the chemotactic defect in CA patient monocytes is unknown.  However, it is thought that a serum-borne cell-directed inhibitor may be responsible for the defect (48,49).  This inhibitor causes decreased monocyte polarization in response to chemoattractant (50,51) [unpublished data], alterations in formylpeptide receptor expression (35), suppression of the respiratory burst (52), and inhibition of protein kinase C-related cell functions (53).  Myosin heavy and light chains are known substrates for protein kinase C (44), but the role of protein kinase C in regulating myosin phosphorylation in non-muscle cells is not known (Wilson and DeLan, 1992).  The alterations in myosin content of leukocytes in CA patients described here may be directly involved in the inhibition of cell polarization and the chemotactic deficiency seen in cells from these patients.  This may contribute to the inability of these immune effectors to deter the growth and spread of neoplasia and to the susceptibility of these patients to life-threatening bacterial infections (54).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Dr. Abraham Mark and Robert Novak for their assistance with flow cytometry and John Krewer for technical assistance.  This work was supported in part by the American Cancer Society, Illinois Division. 


REFERENCES

 1. DEVREOTES PN, ZIGMOND SH. Chemotaxis in eukaryotic cells:  A focus on leukocytes and Dictyostelium. Ann Rev Cell Biol 1988;4:1054-1058.

 2. SOUTHWICK FS, STOSSEL TP. Contractile proteins in leukocyte function. Sem Hematol 1983;20:305-321.

 3. WALLACE PJ, WERSTO RP, PACKMAN CH, et al. Chemotactic peptide-induced changes in neutrophil actin conformation. J Cell Biol 1984;99:1060-1065.

 4. HOWARD TH, ORESAJO CO. The kinetics of chemotactic peptide-induced changes in F-actin content, F-actin distribution, and the shape of neutrophils. J Cell Biol 1985;101:1078-1085.

 5. YUMURA S, MORI H, FUKUI Y. Localization of actin and myosin for the study of ameboid movement in Dictyostelium using improved immunofluorescence. J Cell Biol 1984;99:894-899.

 6. OLIVER JM, KRAWIEC JA, BECKER EL. The distribution of actin during chemotaxis in rabbit neutrophils. J Reticuloend Soc 1978;24:697-704.

 7. SULLIVAN JA, MANDELL GL. Motility of human polymorphonuclear neutrophils:  Microscopic analysis of substrate adhesion an distribution of F-actin. Cell Motil 1983;3:31-46.

 8. STOSSEL TP, HARTWIG JH, YIN HL, et al. The motor of leukocytes. Fed Proc 1984;43:2760-2763.

 9. WEEDS A. Actin binding proteins:  Regulators of cell architecture and motility. Nature 1982;296:811-816.

10. BERLOT CH, SPUDICH JA, DEVREOTES PN. Chemoattractant-elicited increases in myosin phosphorylation in Dictyostelium. Cell 1985;43:307-314.

11. FECHHEIMER M, ZIGMOND SH. Changes in cytoskeletal proteins of polymorphonuclear leukocytes induced by chemotactic peptides. Cell Motil 1983;3:349-361.

12. IKEBE M, INAGACKI M, NAKA M, et al. Correlation of conformation and phosphorylation and dephosphorylation of smooth muscle myosin. J Biol Chem 1988;263:10698-10704.

13. CRAIG R, SMITH R, KENDRICK-JONES J. Light chain phosphorylation controls the conformation of vertebrate non-muscle and smooth muscle myosin molecules. Nature 1983;302:436-439.

14. SPUDICH JA. In pursuit of myosin function. Cell Regul 1989;1:1-11.

15. BERLOT CH, DEVREOTES PN, SPUDICH JA. Chemoattractant-elicited increases in Dictyostelium myosin phosphorylation are due to changes in myosin localization and increases in kinase activity. J Biol Chem 1987;262:3918-3926.

16. DHARMAWARDHANE S, WARREN V, HALL AL, et al. Changes in the association of actin-binding proteins with the actin cytoskeleton during chemotactic stimulation of Dictyostelium discoideum. Cell Motil Cytoskel 1989;13:57-63.

17. YUMURA S, FUKUI Y. Reversible cyclic AMP-dependent change in distribution of myosin thick filaments in Dictyostelium. Nature 1985;314:194-196.

18. HONER B, CITI S, KENDRICK-JONES J, et al. Modulation of cellular morphology and locomotory activity by antibodies against myosin. J Cell Biol 1988;107:2181-2189.

19. SINARD JH, POLLARD TD. Microinjection into Acanthamoeba castellanii of monoclonal antibodies to myosin-II slows but does not stop cell locomotion. Cell Motil Cytoskel 1989;12:42-52.

20. VALERIUS NH, STENDAHL O, HARTWIG JH, et al. Distribution of actin-binding protein and myosin in polymorphonuclear leukocytes during locomotion and phagocytosis. Cell 1981;24:195-202.

21. CHEN WT. Mechanism of retraction of the trailing edge during fibroblast movement. J Cell Biol 1981;90:187-200.

22. HOLZPAFEL G, WEHLAND J, WEBER K. Calcium control of actin-myosin based contraction in Triton models of mouse 3T3 fibroblasts is mediated by the myosin light chain kinase (MLCK)-calmodulin complex. Exptl Cell Res 1983;148:117-126.

23. WILSON AK, GORGAS G, CLAYPOOL WD, et al. An increase or a decrease in myosin II phosphorylation inhibits macrophage motility. J Cell Biol 1991;114:277-283.

24. ADELSTEIN RS. Regulation of contractile proteins by phosphorylation. J Clin Inv 1983;72:1863-1866.

25. CANDE WZ, EZZELL RM. Evidence for regulation of lamellipodia and tail contraction in glycerinated chicken embryonic fibroblasts by myosin light chain kinase. Cell Motil 1986;6:640-648.

26. WESSELS D, SOLL ,D.R., KNECHT D, et al. Cell motility and chemotaxis in Dictyostelium amebae lacking myosin heavy chain. Devel Biol 1988;128:164-177.

27. JUNG G, HAMMER JA. Generation and characterization of Dictyostelium cells deficient in a myosin I heavy chain isoform. J Cell Biol 1990;110:1955-1964.

28. WILSON AK, POLLENZ RS, CHISHOLM RL, et al. The role of myosin I and II in cell motility. Canc Metas Revs 1992;11:79-91.

29. WALTER RJ, DANIELSON JR, VAN ALTEN PJ, et al. Defects in monocyte chemotaxis in patients with neoplastic disease. J Surg Res 1986;41:215-224.

30. WALTER RJ, DANIELSON JR. Defective monocyte chemotaxis in patients with epidermoid tumors of the head and neck. Arch Otolar 1985;111:538-540.

31. HIBBS JB, LAMBERT LH, REMINGTON JS. Possible role of macrophage mediated nonspecific cytotoxicity in tumour resistance. Nature N B 1972;235:48-50.

32. MORTON DL. Horizons in tumor immunology. Surgery 1973;74:69-79.

33. NORTH RJ, KIRSTEN DP, TUTTLE RL. Subversion of host defense mechanisms by murine tumors.  I.  A circulating factor that suppresses macrophage-mediated resistance to infection. J Exptl Med 1976;143:559-573.

34. EVANS R. Macrophages in syngeneic animal tumors. Transpl 1972;14:468-473.

35. WALTER RJ, DANIELSON JR. Characterization of formylpeptide chemoattractant binding on neutrophils and monocytes from patients with head and neck cancer. J Natl Canc Inst 1987;78:61-69.

36. DELANEROLLE P, ADELSTEIN RS, FERAMISCO JR, et al. Characterization of antibodies to smooth muscle myosin kinase and their use in localizing myosin kinase in nonmuscle cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1981;78:4738-4742.

37. KAWAMOTO S, ADELSTEIN RS. Characterization of myosin heavy chains in cultured aorta smooth muscle cells:  A comparative study. J Biol Chem 1987;262:7282-7288.

38. GRIFFIN JD, LYNCH D, SABBATH K, et al. A monoclonal antibody reactive with normal and leukemic human myeloid progenitor cells. Leuk Res 1984;8:521-529.

39. JOHNSON GD, NOGUEIRA ARAUJO GM. A simple method of reducing the fading of immunofluorescence during microscopy. J Immunol Meth 1981;43:349-350.

40. DEBIASIO RL, WANG L-L, FISHER GW, et al. The dynamic distribution of fluorescent analogues of actin and myosin in protrusions at the leading edge of migrating Swiss 3T3 fibroblasts. J Cell Biol 1988;107:2631-2645.

41. WHITE JR, NACCACHE PH, SHA'AFI RI. Stimulation by chemotactic factor of actin association with the cytoskeleton in rabbit neutrophils. J Biol Chem 1983;258:14041-14047.

42. FEINSTEIN MB, EGAN JJ, OPAS EE. Reversal of thrombin-induced myosin phosphorylation and the assembly of cytoskeletal structures in platelets by the adenylate cyclase stimulants prostaglandin D2 and forskolin. J Biol Chem 1983;258:1260-1267.

43. BAINES IC, KORN ED. Localization of myosin IC and myosin II in Acanthamoeba castellanii by indirect immunfluorescence and immunogold electron microscopy. J Cell Biol 1990;111:1895-1904.

44. KELLEY CA, KAWAMOTO ,S., CONTI MA, et al. Phosphorylation of vertebrate smooth muscle and nonmuscle myosin heavy chains in vitro and in intact cells. J Cell Sci 1991;Suppl. 14:49-54.

45. CIANCIOLO GJ, HUNTER J, SILVA J, et al. Inhibitors of monocyte responses to chemotaxins are present in human cancerous effusions and react with monoclonal antibodies to the p15E structural protein of retroviruses. J Clin Inv 1981;68:831-844.

46. TAN IB, BALM FJM, SNOW GB, et al. Immunosuppressive retrovirus-related factors in sera of patients with head and neck cancer. Eur Arch Otolaryn 1990;247:387-390.

47. OOSTENDORP RAJ, SCHAAPER WMM, POST J, et al. Synthetic hexapeptides derived from the transmembrane envelope proteins of retroviruses suppress N-formylpeptide-induced monocyte polarization. J Leuk Biol 1992;51:282-288.

48. CIANCIOLO GJ, MATTHEWS TJ, BOLOGNESI DP, et al. Macrophage accumulation in mice is inhibited by low molecular weight products from murine leukemia viruses. J Immunol 1980;124:2900-2905.

49. MADERAZO EG, ANTON TF, WARD PA. Serum-associated inhibitor of leukocytosis in humans with cancer. Clin Immunol Immunopath 1978;9:166-176.

50. TAN IB, DREXHAGE HA, SCHEPER RJ, et al. Immunosuppressive retroviral p15E-related factors in head and neck carcinomas. Arch Otolaryngol HN Surg 1986;112:942-945.

51. Cianciolo, G.J. and Snyderman, R. Characterisation of an inhibitor of monocyte function in effusions of cancer patients. In: Lymphokines and thymic hormones:  their potential utilization in cancer therapeutics, edited by Goldstein, A.L. and Chirigos, M.A. New York: Raven Press, 1981, p. 205-213.

52. HARRELL RA, CIANCIOLO GJ, COPELAND TD, et al. Suppression of the respiratory burst of human monocytes by a synthetic peptide homologous to envelope proteins of human and animal retroviruses. J Immunol 1986;136:3517-3520.

53. GOTTLIEB RA, KLEINERMAN ES, O'BRIAN CA, et al. Inhibition of protein kinase C by a peptide conjugate bound to a domain of  the retroviral protein p15E. J Immunol 1990;145:2566-2570.

54. INAGACKI J, RODRIGUEZ V, BODEY GP. Causes of death in cancer patients. Cancer 1974;33:568-578.

55. FUKUI Y, MURRAY J, RIDDELLE KS, et al. Cell behavior and actomyosin organization in Dictyostelium during substrate exploration. Cell Struc Func 1991;16:289-301.

56. HAGEN SJ, KIEHART DP, KAISER DA, et al. Characterization of monoclonal antibodies to Acanthamoeba myosin-I that cross-react with myosin-II and low molecular mass nuclear proteins. J Cell Biol 1986;103:2121-2128.

57. JOCKUSCH RM, HAEMMERLI G, IN ALBON A. Cytoskeletal Organization in locomoting cells of the V2 rabbit carcinoma. Exptl Cell Res 1983;144:251-263.

58. UEDA T, SHIBATA N. Distribution patterns of actin and myosin during leucocyte movement and phagocytosis. Acta Haematol 1983;46:1451-1461.

59. RUBINO S, FIGHETTI M, UNGER E, et al. Location of actin, myosin, and microtubular structures during directed locomotion of Dictyostelium amebae. J Cell Biol 1984;98:382-390.

60. FUKUI Y, LYNCH TJ, BRZESKA H, et al. Myosin I is located at the leading edges of locomoting Dictyostelium amoebae. Nature 1989;341:328-331.

61. SCHREINER GF, FUJIWARA K, POLLARD TD, et al. Redistribution of myosin accompanying capping of surface Ig. J Exptl Med 1977;145:1393-1398.

62. BRAUN J, FUJIWARA K, POLLARD TD, et al. Two distinct mechanisms for redistribution of lymphocyte surface macromolecules.  I.  Relationship to cytoplasmic myosin. J Cell Biol 1978;79:409-418.

63. BOURGUIGNON LYW, SINGER SJ. Transmembrane interactions and the mechanism of capping of surface receptors by their specific ligands. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1977;74:5031-5035.


FIGURES




  Figure 1

Leukocytes were fixed, lysed in acetone, quenched in sodium borohydride, and nonspecific binding blocked with BSA and NGS.  Cells were exposed to rabbit anti-chicken gizzard myosin serum, FITC-labeled goat anti-rabbit IgG, and stained with Hoechst 33258 to aid in the identification of monocytes.  (a)  unstimulated, adherent CT leukocytes showed diffuse cytoplasmic fluorescence in both rounded and spontaneously polarized (arrow) cells.  Very little fluorescence was associated with the plasma membrane.  (b, c)  Unstimulated PMN and monocytes from CA patient.  Nuclear fluorescence (c) clearly distinguishes monocytes from PMN (arrowhead).  Monocytes usually displayed less intense, more diffuse fluorescence than did PMN (d-g).  Formylpeptide-stimulated CT PMN and monocytes exhibited a distinct leading lamellipod and trailing uropod (d,e; arrowheads).  Formylpeptide-stimulated PMN and monocytes from CA patients (f,g).   Antimyosin staining was concentrated beneath the plasma membrane for both PMN and monocytes and prominently in the trailing uropod region of polarized PMN. (a) Magnification bar = 20 µm; (b-g) Magnification bar = 10 µm.


Figure 2

Leukocytes were fixed, lysed in acetone, quenched in sodium borohydride, and nonspecific binding blocked with BSA and NGS.  Cells were exposed to affinity-purified rabbit anti-turkey gizzard MLCK, FITC-labeled goat anti-rabbit IgG, and stained with Hoechst 33258 to aid in the identification of monocytes.  Unstimulated, adherent CT (a, b) and CA (c, d) PMN and monocytes exhibited faint diffuse cytoplasmic fluorescence.  Formylpeptide-stimulated CT (e) and CA (f) leukocytes displayed MLCK staining that was in most cases diffuse throughout the cytoplasm, but in some cells (arrows) was concentrated in the uropod region.  (a-d) Magnification bar = 10 µm; (e, f) magnification bar = 20 µm.


Figure 3

Right angle versus forward light scatter (a) of CT PMN, monocytes, and lymphocytes.  Monocytes were enriched, fixed, extracted with acetone, treated with antimyosin followed by FITC-conjugated goat antirabbit IgG and finally with phycoerythrin-conjugated MY-9.  The upper right gate surrounds the region containing residual PMN contaminating the monocyte suspension.  Due to their distinct granularity and size this region is easily distinguished in most preparations.  The lower left gate surrounds the region typically occupied by monocytes.  Lymphocytes, red blood cells, and platelets are seen to the far left.  MY-9 staining (b) of the myosin-positive cells found in this gate indicated that 85% of the cells observed were monocytes.


Figure 4

Right angle versus forward light scatter (A), a representative plot showing purified CT PMN gate and cells.  Cells were fixed, extracted, and stained for myosin.  Log green fluorescence versus cell count histograms (B) showed a sharp, unimodal distribution having a mean channel number (for this sample) of 78 ± 9 (SD).


Figure 5

CT (filled circles) and CA (open circles) patient monocytes were exposed to buffer alone or to different concentrations of FMLP for 20 min at 37ºC.  At each concentration, monocyte polarization in CA samples was significantly different (p<0.01) than that seen in CT samples.  Data are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 6).

 Figure 6

CT (filled circles) and CA (open circles) patient monocytes were incubated with 10-9 M FMLP (solid lines) or in buffer alone (dotted lines) for times varying from 0 to 60 min.  In buffer alone, the fraction of polarized CA monocytes was significantly greater (p<0.05) at all times (except 0 time) than that seen for CT monocytes.  FMLP-stimulated CA monocytes exhibited significantly decreased (p<0.05) polarization for incubation times between 5 and 30 min but significantly increased (p<0.05) polarization after 60 min of incubation as compared to that seen for CT monocytes.  Data are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 6).





TABLE 1



Averaged Mean Channel Numbers for PMN and Monocytes
from CT and CA Subjects Anti-myosin Staining



PMN                           MONOCYTES

CT           CA               CT           CA
_______________________________________________________________________

      Unstimulated                       80 ± 4       a 48 ± 9        77 ± 16      a 22 ± 6

      FMLP-treated

                  1 min                      63 ± 5       b 49 ± 10       47 ± 3       b 21 ± 5

                  4 min                      61 ± 5         53 ± 11       30 ± 5       b 20 ± 3

_______________________________________________________________________

Leukocytes from 3 CT and 3 CA subjects were studied.  The mean channel numbers for each group were averaged (mean ± SD).

a p<0.005  when compared to unstimulated CT group.

b p<0.05  when compared to FMLP stimulated CT group.




TABLE 2



Averaged Mean Channel Numbers for PMN and Monocytes
from CT and CA Subjects Anti-MLCK Staining


PMN                           MONOCYTES

CT           CA             CT           CA

_______________________________________________________________________


      Unstimulated                       63 ± 10      a 62 ± 10       61 ± 3       a 55 ± 3

      FMLP-treated

                        1 min                67 ± 14      a 63 ± 13       70 ± 3       a  62 ± 5

                        4 min                64 ± 17      a 65 ± 10      b 72 ± 2      ab 65 ± 3


_______________________________________________________________________


Leukocytes from 3 CT and 3 CA subjects were studied.  The mean channel numbers for each group were averaged (mean ± SD).

a Not significantly different from paired CT group.

b p<0.05 when compared to unstimulated group.







TABLE 3

Myosin II Localization in Unstimulated and Chemotactically Activated Cells


Cell type                                             Myosin II distribution            Stimulant        Reference

Dictyostelium discoideum                   excluded from cortex                None                (55)

Dictyostelium discoideum                   rods in endoplasm                     None                (17)

Acanthamoeba castellanii                   cell cortex                                 None                (43)

Acanthamoeba castellanii                   diffuse in cytoplasm                   None                (56)
   
V2 rabbit carcinoma                             absent from lamellipod               None                (57)

Rabbit PMN                                        diffuse                                       None                (20)

Human PMN                                        diffuse                                       None                (58)

Dictyostelium discoideum                   rods in ectoplasm                       cAMP              (17)

Dictyostelium discoideum                   posterior cortex                         cAMP                (5)

Dictyostelium discoideum                   uropod only                               cAMP              (59)

Dictyostelium discoideum                   uropod only                               cAMP              (60)

3T3 fibroblasts                                     absent from protrusions              Wound             (40)
                                                            immobile in lamellipod     

Human lymphocytes                              uropod                                      Ig capping        (61)

Human lymphocytes                              uropod                                      capping            (62)

Mouse T lymphocyte                            uropod                                      capping            (63)

Rabbit PMN, HeLa cells                      lamellipod                                  complement      (20)


FYI.  The content on this blog is copyright protected © by the author.  Feel free to read, copy, and disseminate the studies described here.  When it is appropriate to recognize and attribute the work of others, please indicate the origin of the work by citing this blog URL as an electronic web citation .