1. Developmental Biology
  2. Immunology and Inflammation
Download icon

Chemokines: The cell sets the tone

  1. Jonna Alanko  Is a corresponding author
  2. Michael Sixt  Is a corresponding author
  1. Institute of Science and Technology Austria, Austria
Insight
  • Cited 0
  • Views 1,184
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2018;7:e37888 doi: 10.7554/eLife.37888

Abstract

In zebrafish larvae, it is the cell type that determines how the cell responds to a chemokine signal.

Main text

In the body, cells constantly ‘talk’ to each other via extracellular signaling molecules. When one of these molecules binds to a receptor on a cell, it generally activates a signaling pathway that leads to this cell doing something.

Chemokines are signaling molecules that mainly direct how cells migrate during immunity and developmental processes. Vertebrates have more than 40 chemokines and 20 chemokine receptors, which all belong to the well-known class of G protein coupled receptors. There is a certain amount of redundancy in the system, with some chemokines being able to bind to more than one type of receptor, and some receptors being able to bind different types of chemokines (Rot and von Andrian, 2004). Chemokines likely evolved to orchestrate the trafficking of numerous different types of immune cells, but some are also important in embryonic development (Wang and Knaut, 2014). Given the number of different signaling molecules and receptors involved, and the range of roles they play, how does the chemokine receptor-ligand system encode specificity? In other words, how does a cell ‘understand’ which pathway to activate when a chemokine binds to a chemokine receptor on its surface?

To answer this, researchers concentrated on the differences between the signaling pathways triggered by different chemokine receptors. They found that there is a ‘ligand bias’: a receptor can trigger different cellular responses depending on the ligand it binds (Steen et al., 2014). In these cases, the cell ‘knows’ how to respond to a signal because a specific ligand-receptor combination activates a unique cellular pathway (Figure 1A). Now, in eLife, Erez Raz of the University of Münster and colleagues – including Divyanshu Malhotra (Münster), Jimann Shin and Lilianna Solnica-Krezel (both at Washington University School of Medicine) – report results of experiments in zebrafish larvae that challenge the importance of specificity in chemokine recognition (Malhotra et al., 2018).

Chemokines trigger a 'yes or no' response in cells.

(A) When a chemokine (blue, green or brown line) binds to a chemokine receptor (black lines) embedded in the plasma membrane (PM; grey) of a cell, a G protein formed of three subunits (α, ß, γ), one of which (α) is attached to a molecule called GDP, is recruited. The GDP is then replaced with a molecule known as GTP, the G protein dissociates, and the different subunits go on to activate a range of different cellular pathways. (B) Different models can explain how chemokines signal within a cell. In the first model (left), different chemokines (L1, L2, L3) bind to their corresponding receptors (R1, R2, R3) and activate a generic G protein mediated pathway (G) in two types of cells (in yellow and green). The final response (RE1, RE2) triggered by a chemokine is ultimately dependent on interpretation modules (depicted as cellular brains) that are specific to the cell type, rather than on the identity of the signaling chemokine-receptor complex. The second model (right) proposes that each chemokine-receptor pairs activates a specific cellular pathway that determines a particular cellular response. The work by Malhotra et al. supports the first model (Malhotra et al., 2018).

The researchers took advantage of the fact that zebrafish have a duplicated genome, which means that many of the receptors and ligands come in two versions. Malhotra et al. also made use of the fact that chemokines act in a range of distinct developmental phenomena, such as the migration of germ cells, the adhesion of endoderm cells and the specification of cell fate during gastrulation. They used a combination of genetic approaches, together with imaging-based readouts, to test if receptor-ligand interactions (and the resulting signals) specified the biological process, or if the response depended on the cell type. In their genetic manipulations, the researchers gradually went from subtle to radical. They started by swapping the receptor-ligand pairs that arose due to the duplication of the zebrafish genome. The most extreme changes involved replacing a receptor-ligand pair with a pair that was involved in a completely different developmental process.

From all these experiments, Malhotra et al. got a surprisingly clear answer to their question. The cells more or less always behaved the way they would have if they still had their original receptors: germ cells migrated (albeit to the wrong place), endoderm cells adhered, and they differentiated during gastrulation. While most chemokines signal through the cell via two families of G protein subunits, Gαi and G12/13, further manipulations confirmed that all the different receptors used in the study signaled through the Gαi pathway. This means that the role of the chemokine receptors is to switch on the Gαi signaling cascade; it is then up to the cell to interpret that ‘yes or no’ signal and to trigger the right molecular processes. It is the cell type that dictates the response, not the receptor-ligand pair (Figure 1B). In simple words: no matter which chemokine a specific cell type 'smells', it will always respond the way it 'wants'. This is surprising given the wealth of research that describes different signal modalities for different chemokine receptors.

However, a large number of signaling processes, including many that involve G proteins, also work in such a modular way. A typical example is the system used by vertebrates to discriminate between different odors. In mice, over a thousand different G protein-coupled odor receptors are expressed in the tissue that lines the nose. Yet, a single olfactory sensory neuron does not carry a thousand different receptors, each signaling via a specific pathway. Instead, each neuron only expresses one type of receptor, which responds to only one chemical, and these neurons all work together to identify odors (Buck, 2000). An even more extreme case is the immune system, where every clone of B or T cells carries an individually assembled and therefore specific receptor at its surface. However, all these receptors signal to the cell via the same conserved pathway (Nussenzweig, 1998).

Such funneling of information through one common pathway creates a ‘weak regulatory linkage’ (Gerhart and Kirschner, 2007). In this situation, the input (cell senses something) is coupled to the output (cell does something) via a single conserved process that does not convey any specific information: rather it just signals yes or no. This process can be a membrane potential, a flux of calcium ions or a Gαi signal. This means that inputs and outputs, such as regulatory signals and functional responses, are free to evolve independently from each other. The work of Malhotra et al. provides an excellent example of weak regulatory linkage in the chemokine system.

References

    1. Nussenzweig MC
    (1998)
    Immune receptor editing: revise and select
    Cell 95:875–878.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jonna Alanko

    Jonna Alanko is in the Institute of Science and Technology Austria, Klosterneuburg, Austria

    For correspondence
    jonna.alanko@ist.ac.at
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7698-3061
  2. Michael Sixt

    Michael Sixt is in the Institute of Science and Technology Austria, Klosterneuburg, Austria

    For correspondence
    michael.sixt@ist.ac.at
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6620-9179

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: June 6, 2018 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2018, Alanko et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,184
    Page views
  • 133
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Elise Houssin et al.
    Research Article Updated

    In multiple cell lineages, Delta-Notch signalling regulates cell fate decisions owing to unidirectional signalling between daughter cells. In Drosophila pupal sensory organ lineage, Notch regulates the intra-lineage pIIa/pIIb fate decision at cytokinesis. Notch and Delta that localise apically and basally at the pIIa-pIIb interface are expressed at low levels and their residence time at the plasma membrane is in the order of minutes. How Delta can effectively interact with Notch to trigger signalling from a large plasma membrane area remains poorly understood. Here, we report that the signalling interface possesses a unique apico-basal polarity with Par3/Bazooka localising in the form of nano-clusters at the apical and basal level. Notch is preferentially targeted to the pIIa-pIIb interface, where it co-clusters with Bazooka and its cofactor Sanpodo. Clusters whose assembly relies on Bazooka and Sanpodo activities are also positive for Neuralized, the E3 ligase required for Delta activity. We propose that the nano-clusters act as snap buttons at the new pIIa-pIIb interface to allow efficient intra-lineage signalling.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Benoit Roch et al.
    Research Article Updated

    We developed an Xrcc4M61R separation of function mouse line to overcome the embryonic lethality of Xrcc4-deficient mice. XRCC4M61R protein does not interact with Xlf, thus obliterating XRCC4-Xlf filament formation while preserving the ability to stabilize DNA ligase IV. X4M61R mice, which are DNA repair deficient, phenocopy the Nhej1-/- (known as Xlf -/-) setting with a minor impact on the development of the adaptive immune system. The core non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) DNA repair factor XRCC4 is therefore not mandatory for V(D)J recombination aside from its role in stabilizing DNA ligase IV. In contrast, Xrcc4M61R mice crossed on Paxx-/-, Nhej1-/-, or Atm-/- backgrounds are severely immunocompromised, owing to aborted V(D)J recombination as in Xlf-Paxx and Xlf-Atm double Knock Out (DKO) settings. Furthermore, massive apoptosis of post-mitotic neurons causes embryonic lethality of Xrcc4M61R -Nhej1-/- double mutants. These in vivo results reveal new functional interplays between XRCC4 and PAXX, ATM and Xlf in mouse development and provide new insights into the understanding of the clinical manifestations of human XRCC4-deficient condition, in particular its absence of immune deficiency.