Search

Complex formation and endocytosis of transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) receptors play important roles in signaling. However, their interdependence remained unexplored. Here, we demonstrate that ALK1, a TGF-β type I receptor prevalent in endothelial cells, forms stable complexes at the cell surface with endoglin and with type III TGF-β receptors (TβRIII). We show that ALK1 undergoes clathrin-mediated endocytosis (CME) faster than ALK5, type II TGF-β receptor (TβRII), endoglin, or TβRIII. These complexes regulate the endocytosis of the TGF-β receptors, with a major effect mediated by ALK1. Thus, ALK1 enhances the endocytosis of TβRIII and endoglin, while ALK5 and TβRII mildly enhance endoglin, but not TβRIII, internalization. Conversely, the slowly endocytosed endoglin has no effect on the endocytosis of either ALK1, ALK5, or TβRII, while TβRIII has a differential effect, slowing the internalization of ALK5 and TβRII, but not ALK1. Such effects may be relevant to signaling, as BMP9-mediated Smad1/5/8 phosphorylation is inhibited by CME blockade in endothelial cells. We propose a model that links TGF-β receptor oligomerization and endocytosis, based on which endocytosis signals are exposed/functional in specific receptor complexes. This has broad implications for signaling, implying that complex formation among various receptors regulates their surface levels and signaling intensities.

Signaling by receptors from the transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) superfamily plays critical roles in multiple physiological and pathological processes. Their signaling requires complex formation between type I and type II receptors with Ser/Thr kinase activity, whereby the type II receptor phosphorylates and activates the relevant type I receptor(s), which transduces downstream signaling. It is therefore important to study complex formation among receptors from this family. In the current chapter, we use the type I (ALK5) and type II TGF-β receptors (TβRI and TβRII) as an example for measuring complex formation among cell-surface receptors in live cells by patch-FRAP, a variation of fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP).

Background Activins and bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) play critical, sometimes opposing roles, in multiple physiological and pathological processes and diseases. They signal to distinct Smad branches; activins signal mainly to Smad2/3, while BMPs activate mainly Smad1/5/8. This gives rise to the possibility that competition between the different type I receptors through which activin and BMP signal for common type II receptors can provide a mechanism for fine-tuning the cellular response to activin/BMP stimuli. Among the transforming growth factor-β superfamily type II receptors, ACVR2A/B are highly promiscuous, due to their ability to interact with different type I receptors (e.g., ALK4 vs. ALK2/3/6) and with their respective ligands [activin A (ActA) vs. BMP9/2]. However, studies on complex formation between these full-length receptors situated at the plasma membrane, and especially on the potential competition between the different activin and BMP type I receptors for a common activin type II receptor, were lacking. Results We employed a combination of IgG-mediated patching-immobilization of several type I receptors in the absence or presence of ligands with fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) measurements on the lateral diffusion of an activin type II receptor, ACVR2A, to demonstrate the principle of competition between type I receptors for ACVR2. Our results show that ACVR2A can form stable heteromeric complexes with ALK4 (an activin type I receptor), as well as with several BMP type I receptors (ALK2/3/6). Of note, ALK4 and the BMP type I receptors competed for binding ACVR2A. To assess the implications of this competition for signaling output, we first validated that in our cell model system (U2OS cells), ACVR2/ALK4 transduce ActA signaling to Smad2/3, while BMP9 signaling to Smad1/5/8 employ ACVR2/ALK2 or ACVR2/ALK3. By combining ligand stimulation with overexpression of a competing type I receptor, we showed that differential complex formation of distinct type I receptors with a common type II receptor balances the signaling to the two Smad branches. Conclusions Different type I receptors that signal to distinct Smad pathways (Smad2/3 vs. Smad1/5/8) compete for binding to common activin type II receptors. This provides a novel mechanism to balance signaling between Smad2/3 and Smad1/5/8.