Dataset Information

SOCS3 inhibiting migration of A549 cells correlates with PYK2 signaling in vitro.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Suppressor of cytokine signaling 3 (SOCS3) is considered to inhibit cytokine responses and play a negative role in migration of various cells. Proline-rich tyrosine kinase 2 (PYK2) is a non-receptor kinase and has been found crucial to cell motility. However, little is known about whether SOCS3 could regulate PYK2 pro-migratory function in lung cancer.

Methods

The methylation status of SOCS3 was investigated in HBE and A549 cell lines by methylation-specific PCR. A549 cells were either treated with a demethylation agent 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine or transfected with three SOCS3 mutants with various functional domains deleted. Besides, cells were pretreated with a proteasome inhibitor beta-lactacystin where indicated. The effects of SOCS3 up-regulation on PYK2 expression, PYK2 and ERK1/2 phosphorylations were assessed by western blot using indicated antibodies. RT-PCR was used to estimate PYK2 mRNA levels. Transwell experiments were performed to evaluate cell migration.

Results

SOCS3 expression was found impaired in A549 cells and higher PYK2 activity was correlated with enhanced cell migration. We identified that SOCS3 was aberrantly methylated in the exon 2, and 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine restored SOCS3 expression. Reactivation of SOCS3 attenuated PYK2 expression and phosphorylation, cell migration was inhibited as well. Transfection studies indicated that exogenous SOCS3 interacted with PYK2, and both the Src homology 2 (SH2) and the kinase inhibitory region (KIR) domains of SOCS3 contributed to PYK2 binding. Furthermore, SOCS3 was found to inhibit PYK2-associated ERK1/2 activity in A549 cells. SOCS3 possibly promoted degradation of PYK2 in a SOCS-box-dependent manner and interfered with PYK2-related signaling events, such as cell migration.

Conclusion

These data indicate that SOCS3 negatively regulates cell motility and decreased SOCS3 induced by methylation may confer a migration advantage to A549 cells. These results also suggest a negative role of SOCS3 in PYK2 signaling, and a previously unidentified regulatory mechanism for PYK2 function.

SUBMITTER: Zhang S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2429913 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Tumors and the tumor microenvironment produce multiple growth factors that influence cancer cell behavior via various signal transduction pathways. Growth factors, like transforming growth factor β (TGFβ) and epidermal growth factor (EGF), have been shown to induce proliferation, migration, and invasion in different cell models. Both factors are frequently overexpressed in cancer and will often act in combination. Although both factors are being used as rational targets in clinical oncology, the similarities and differences of their contributions to cancer cell migration and invasion are not fully understood. Here we compared the impact of treating A549 lung adenocarcinoma cells with TGFβ, EGF, and both in combination by applying videomicroscopy, functional assays, immunoblotting, real-time PCR, and proteomics. Treatment with both factors stimulated A549 migration to a similar extent, but with different kinetics. The combination had an additive effect. EGF-induced migration depended on activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. However, this pathway was dispensable for TGFβ-induced migration, despite a strong activation of this pathway by TGFβ. Proteome analysis (data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD023024) revealed an overlap in expression patterns of migration-related proteins and associated gene ontology (GO) terms by TGFβ and EGF. Further, only TGFβ induced the expression of epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT)-related proteins like matrix metalloproteinase 2 (MMP2). EGF, in contrast, made no major contribution to EMT marker expression on either the protein or the transcript level. In line with these expression patterns, TGFβ treatment significantly increased the invasive capacity of A549 cells, while EGF treatment did not. Moreover, the addition of EGF failed to enhance TGFβ-induced invasion. Overall, these data suggest that TGFβ and EGF can partly compensate for each other for stimulation of cell migration, but abrogation of TGFβ signaling may be more suitable to suppress cell invasion.