Inhibition of RhoA but not ROCK induces chondrogenesis of chick limb mesenchymal cells
ABSTRACT Cell shape change and cytoskeletal reorganization are known to be involved in the chondrogenesis. Negative role of RhoA, a cytoskeleton-regulating protein, and its downstream target, Rho-associated protein kinase (ROCK) in the chondrogenesis has been studied in many different culture systems including primary chondrocytes, chondrogenic cell lines, dedifferentiated chondrocytes, and micromass culture of mesenchymal cells. To further investigate the role of RhoA and ROCK in the chondrogenesis, we examined the RhoA-ROCK-myosin light chains (MLC) pathway in low density culture of chick limb bud mesenchymal cells. We observed for the first time that inhibition of RhoA by C3 cell-permeable transferase, CT04, induced chondrogenesis of undifferentiated mesenchymal single cells following dissolution of actin stress fibers. Inhibition of RhoA activity by CT04 was confirmed by pull down assay using the Rho-GTP binding domain of Rhotekin. CT04 also inhibited ROCK activity. In contrast, inhibition of ROCK by Y27632 neither altered the actin stress fibers nor induced chondrogenesis. In addition, inhibition of RhoA or ROCK did not affect the phosphorylation of MLC. Inhibition of myosin light chain kinase (MLCK) by ML-7 or inhibition of myosin ATPase with blebbistatin dissolved actin stress fibers and induced chondrogenesis. ML-7 reduced the MLC phosphorylation. Taken together, our current study suggests that RhoA uses other pathway than ROCK/MLC in the modulation of actin stress fibers and chondrogenesis. Our data also imply that, irrespective of mechanisms, dissolution of actin stress fibers is crucial for chondrogenesis.
- SourceAvailable from: Jongkyung Sonn
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Recently, we have shown that RhoA regulates ROCK activity but inhibition of ROCK activity neither affects MLC phosphorylation nor induces chondrogenesis and suggested that RhoA uses other pathway than ROCK for the chondrogenic differentiation (Kim et al., 2012). In accordance with these results, staurosporine affects neither the phosphorylation of MLC nor the phosphorylation of cofilin supporting the hypothesis that RhoA does not utilize ROCK pathway in the chondrogenic differentiation as suggested by Kim et al. (2012). In the present study, cytochalasin D reduced phosphorylation of cofilin. "
ABSTRACT: Actin cytoskeleton has been known to control and/or be associated with chondrogenesis. Staurosporine and cytochalasin D modulate actin cytoskeleton and affect chondrogenesis. However, the underlying mechanisms for actin dynamics regulation by these agents are not known well. In the present study, we investigate the effect of staurosporine and cytochalasin D on the actin dynamics as well as possible regulatory mechanisms of actin cytoskeleton modulation. Staurosporine and cytochalasin D have different effects on actin stress fibers in that staurosporine dissolved actin stress fibers while cytochalasin D disrupted them in both stress forming cells and stress fiber-formed cells. Increase in the G-/F-actin ratio either by dissolution or disruption of actin stress fiber is critical for the chondrogenic differentiation. Cytochalasin D reduced the phosphorylation of cofilin, whereas staurosporine showed little effect on cofilin phosphorylation. Either staurosporine or cytochalasin D had little effect on the phosphorylation of myosin light chain. These results suggest that staurosporine and cytochalasin D employ different mechanisms for the regulation of actin dynamics and provide evidence that removal of actin stress fibers is crucial for the chondrogenic differentiation.Experimental and Molecular Medicine 06/2012; 44(9):521-8. DOI:10.3858/emm.2012.44.9.059 · 2.46 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Wnt and Rho GTPase signaling play critical roles in governing numerous aspects of cell physiology, and have been shown to be involved in endochondral ossification and osteoarthritis (OA) development. In this review, current studies of canonical Wnt signaling in OA development, together with the differential roles of Rho GTPases in chondrocyte maturation and OA pathology are critically summarized. Based on the current scientific literature together with our preliminary results, the strategy of targeting Wnt and Rho GTPase for OA prognosis and therapy is suggested, which is instructive for clinical treatment of the disease.Arthritis research & therapy 07/2013; 15(4):217. DOI:10.1186/ar4240 · 4.12 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective: This preliminary study aims to determine the differentially expressed proteins from chondrogenic differentiated multipotent stromal cells (cMSCs) in comparison to undifferentiated multipotent stromal cells (MSCs) and adult chondrocytes (ACs). Methods: ACs and bone marrow-derived MSCs were harvested from New Zealand White rabbits (n = 3). ACs and cMSCs were embedded in alginate and were cultured using a defined chondrogenic medium containing transforming growth factor-beta 3 (TGF-β3). Chondrogenic expression was determined using type-II collagen, Safranin-O staining and glycosaminoglycan analyses. Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2-DE) was used to isolate proteins from MSCs, cMSCs and ACs before being identified using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). The differentially expressed proteins were then analyzed using image analysis software. Results: Both cMSCs and ACs were positively stained with type-II collagen and safranin-O. The expression of glycosaminoglycan in cMSCs was comparable to AC at which the highest level was observed at day-21 (p>0.05). Six protein spots were found to be most differentially expressed between MSCs, cMSCs and ACs. The protein spots cofilin-1 (CFL1) and glycealdehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPD) from cMSCs had expression levels similar to that of ACs whereas the others (ie. MYL6B, ALDOA, TAGLN2, EF1-alpha), did not match the expression level of ACs. Conclusion: Despite having similar phenotypic expressions to ACs, cMSCs expressed proteins which were not typically expected. This may explain the reason for the unexplained lack of improvement in cartilage repair outcomes reported in previous studies.International journal of medical sciences 12/2013; 11(1):24-33. DOI:10.7150/ijms.7244 · 1.55 Impact Factor