CD44 is a cell surface glycoprotein that functions as hyaluronan receptor. Mouse and human serum contain substantial amounts of soluble CD44, generated either by shedding or alternative splicing. During inflammation and in cancer patients serum levels of soluble CD44 are significantly increased. Experimentally, soluble CD44 overexpression blocks cancer cell adhesion to HA. We have previously found that recombinant CD44 hyaluronan binding domain (CD44HABD) and its non-HA-binding mutant inhibited tumor xenograft growth, angiogenesis, and endothelial cell proliferation. These data suggested an additional target other than HA for CD44HABD. By using non-HA-binding CD44HABD Arg41Ala, Arg78Ser, and Tyr79Ser-triple mutant (CD443MUT) we have identified intermediate filament protein vimentin as a novel interaction partner of CD44. We found that vimentin is expressed on the cell surface of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC). Endogenous CD44 and vimentin coprecipitate from HUVECs, and when overexpressed in vimentin-negative MCF-7 cells. By using deletion mutants, we found that CD44HABD and CD443MUT bind vimentin N-terminal head domain. CD443MUT binds vimentin in solution with a Kd in range of 12–37 nM, and immobilised vimentin with Kd of 74 nM. CD443MUT binds to HUVEC and recombinant vimentin displaces CD443MUT from its binding sites. CD44HABD and CD443MUT were internalized by wild-type endothelial cells, but not by lung endothelial cells isolated from vimentin knock-out mice. Together, these data suggest that vimentin provides a specific binding site for soluble CD44 on endothelial cells.

During development, cascades of regulatory genes act in a hierarchical fashion to subdivide the embryo into increasingly specified body regions. This has been best characterized in Drosophila, where genes encoding regulatory transcription factors form a network to direct the development of the basic segmented body plan. The pair-rule genes are pivotal in this process as they are responsible for the first subdivision of the embryo into repeated metameric units. The Drosophila pair-rule gene fushi tarazu (ftz) is a derived Hox gene expressed in and required for the development of alternate parasegments. Previous studies suggested that Ftz achieves its distinct regulatory specificity as a segmentation protein by interacting with a ubiquitously expressed cofactor, the nuclear receptor Ftz-F1. However, the downstream target genes regulated by Ftz and other pair-rule genes to direct segment formation are not known. In this study, we selected candidate Ftz targets by virtue of their early expression in Ftz-like stripes. This identified two new Ftz target genes, drumstick (drm) and no ocelli (noc), and confirmed that Ftz regulates a serotonin receptor (5-HT2). These are the earliest Ftz targets identified to date and all are coordinately regulated by Ftz-F1. Engrailed (En), the best-characterized Ftz/Ftz-F1 downstream target, is not an intermediate in regulation. The drm genomic region harbors two separate 7-stripe enhancers, identified by virtue of predicted Ftz-F1 binding sites and these sites are necessary for stripe expression in vivo. We propose that pair-rule genes, exemplified by Ftz/Ftz-F1, promote segmentation by acting at different hierarchical levels, regulating first, other segmentation genes; second, other regulatory genes that in turn control specific cellular processes such as tissue differentiation; and, third, 'segmentation realizator genes' that are directly involved in morphogenesis.

No abstract

The orphan nuclear receptor Ftz-F1 is expressed in all somatic nuclei in Drosophila embryos, but mutations result in a pair-rule phenotype. This was explained by the interaction of Ftz-F1 with the homeodomain protein Ftz that is expressed in stripes in the primordia of segments missing in either ftz-f1 or ftz mutants. Ftz-F1 and Ftz were shown to physically interact and coordinately activate the expression of ftz itself and engrailed by synergistic binding to composite Ftz-F1/Ftz binding sites. However, attempts to identify additional target genes on the basis of Ftz-F1/ Ftz binding alone has met with only limited success. To discern rules for Ftz-F1 target site selection in vivo and to identify additional target genes, a microarray analysis was performed comparing wildtype and ftz-f1 mutant embryos. Ftz-F1-responsive genes most highly regulated included engrailed and nine additional genes expressed in patterns dependent on both ftz and ftz-f1. Candidate enhancers for these genes were identified by combining BDTNP Ftz ChIP-chip data with a computational search for Ftz-F1 binding sites. Of eight enhancer reporter genes tested in transgenic embryos, six generated expression patterns similar to the corresponding endogenous gene and expression was lost in ftz mutants. These studies identified a new set of Ftz-F1 targets, all of which are co-regulated by Ftz. Comparative analysis of enhancers containing Ftz/Ftz-F1 binding sites that were or were not bona fide targets in vivo suggested that GAF negatively regulates enhancers that contain Ftz/Ftz-F1 binding sites but are not actually utilized. These targets include other regulatory factors as well as genes involved directly in morphogenesis, providing insight into how pair-rule genes establish the body pattern.

Drosophila segmentation is regulated by a complex network of transcription factors that include products of the pair-rule genes (PRGs). PRGs are expressed in early embryos in the primorida of alternate segmental units, establishing the repeated, segmental body plan of the fly. Despite detailed analysis of the regulatory logic among segmentation genes, the relationship between these genes and the morphological formation of segments is still poorly understood, since regulation of transcription factor expression is not sufficient to explain how segments actually form and are maintained. Cell surface proteins containing Leucine rich repeats (LRR) play a variety of roles in development, and those expressed in segmental patterns likely impact segment morphogenesis.Here we explore the relationships between the PRG network and segmentally expressed LRRencoding (sLRR) genes. We examined expression of Toll2, Toll6, Toll7, Toll8 and tartan (trn) in wild type or PRG mutant embryos. Expression of each sLRR-encoding gene is dynamic, but each has a unique register along the anterior-posterior axis. The registers for different sLRRs are off-set from one another resulting in a continually changing set of overlapping expression patterns among the sLRR-encoding genes themselves and between the sLRR-encoding genes and the PRGs. Accordingly, each sLRR-encoding gene is regulated by a unique combination of PRGs. These findings suggest that one role of the PRG network is to promote segmentation by establishing a cell surface code: each row of cells in the two-segment-wide primordia expresses a unique combination of sLRRs, thereby translating regulatory information from the PRGs to direct segment morphogenesis.