Mariani S M, Krammer P H
Division of Immunogenetics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Eur J Immunol. 1998 Mar;28(3):973-82. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1521-4141(199803)28:03<973::AID-IMMU973>3.0.CO;2-T.
TRAIL (APO-2 ligand) and CD95L (CD95/APO-1/Fas ligand) share the highest homology among the TNF family members and the ability to induce apoptosis. These similarities raise the issue of a potential functional redundancy between the two ligands. We have previously shown that CD95L-resistant cells may be sensitive to TRAIL, even though apoptosis induced by both ligands is blocked by caspase inhibitors. Here we investigated TRAIL protein expression in cells of T and B origin and compared its regulation of expression with that of CD95L. A rabbit antibody (Ab) to a peptide sequence in the extracellular region of TRAIL identified recombinant TRAIL (rTRAIL) produced by Sf9 cells as a protein of approximately 32-33 kDa and soluble rTRAIL as a 19-20-kDa protein. In human and mouse cells, the Ab identified a 33-34-kDa and an additional 19-20-kDa protein only in human cells. Both transformed cells of the T and B lymphocyte lineage were found to react with the anti-TRAIL Ab by immunoblot analysis and surface staining. The majority of the cells analyzed co-expressed TRAIL and CD95L. Two cell lines showed a mirror-pattern, one being TRAILhigh CD95Llow and the other TRAILlow CD95Lhigh, thus suggesting the existence of a cell type-specific regulation of expression of the two ligands. Differently from CD95L, surface TRAIL was not up-regulated by any of the metalloprotease inhibitors tested, independently of the cell type analyzed. Conversely, reactivity with the anti-TRAIL but not with the anti-CD95L Ab was enhanced by cysteine protease inhibitors. An in vitro cleavage assay showed that generation of soluble rTRAIL was dependent on the functional activity of cysteine proteases, as it was blocked by leupeptin and E64 but not by the metalloprotease inhibitor 1,10-phenanthroline. Thus, even though TRAIL and CD95L share structural and functional properties, they have unique properties as they differ in their regulatory pathways, i.e. cell-type-dependent expression and sensitivity to protease inhibitors.
肿瘤坏死因子相关凋亡诱导配体(TRAIL,又称APO-2配体)和CD95L(CD95/APO-1/Fas配体)在肿瘤坏死因子家族成员中具有最高的同源性,且都具有诱导细胞凋亡的能力。这些相似性引发了两种配体之间可能存在功能冗余的问题。我们之前已经表明,对CD95L耐药的细胞可能对TRAIL敏感,尽管两种配体诱导的细胞凋亡均被半胱天冬酶抑制剂阻断。在此,我们研究了TRAIL蛋白在T细胞和B细胞来源的细胞中的表达情况,并将其表达调控与CD95L的表达调控进行了比较。一种针对TRAIL细胞外区域肽序列的兔抗体(Ab),将Sf9细胞产生的重组TRAIL(rTRAIL)鉴定为一种约32 - 33 kDa的蛋白,可溶性rTRAIL鉴定为一种19 - 20 kDa的蛋白。在人和小鼠细胞中,该抗体仅在人细胞中鉴定出一种33 - 34 kDa的蛋白以及另一种19 - 20 kDa的蛋白。通过免疫印迹分析和表面染色发现,T淋巴细胞系和B淋巴细胞系的转化细胞均与抗TRAIL抗体发生反应。分析的大多数细胞同时表达TRAIL和CD95L。有两个细胞系呈现出镜像模式,一个是TRAIL高表达CD95L低表达,另一个是TRAIL低表达CD95L高表达,这表明两种配体的表达存在细胞类型特异性调控。与CD95L不同,所测试的任何一种金属蛋白酶抑制剂均未上调表面TRAIL的表达,且与所分析的细胞类型无关。相反,半胱氨酸蛋白酶抑制剂增强了细胞与抗TRAIL抗体的反应性,但未增强与抗CD95L抗体的反应性。体外切割试验表明,可溶性rTRAIL的产生依赖于半胱氨酸蛋白酶的功能活性,因为它被亮抑酶肽和E64阻断,但未被金属蛋白酶抑制剂1,10 - 菲咯啉阻断。因此,尽管TRAIL和CD95L具有结构和功能特性,但它们具有独特的特性,因为它们在调控途径上存在差异,即细胞类型依赖性表达以及对蛋白酶抑制剂的敏感性不同。