Chemokines: The cell sets the tone

In zebrafish larvae, it is the cell type that determines how the cell responds to a chemokine signal.
  1. Jonna Alanko  Is a corresponding author
  2. Michael Sixt  Is a corresponding author
  1. Institute of Science and Technology Austria, Austria

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

  • 1,274
    Page views
  • 139
    Downloads
  • 1
    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)

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

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

  1. Jonna Alanko
  2. Michael Sixt
(2018)
Chemokines: The cell sets the tone
eLife 7:e37888.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37888

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Anna Keppner et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Spermatogenesis is a highly specialized differentiation process driven by a dynamic gene expression program and ending with the production of mature spermatozoa. Whereas hundreds of genes are known to be essential for male germline proliferation and differentiation, the contribution of several genes remains uncharacterized. The predominant expression of the latest globin family member, androglobin (Adgb), in mammalian testis tissue prompted us to assess its physiological function in spermatogenesis. Adgb knockout mice display male infertility, reduced testis weight, impaired maturation of elongating spermatids, abnormal sperm shape, and ultrastructural defects in microtubule and mitochondrial organization. Epididymal sperm from Adgb knockout animals display multiple flagellar malformations including coiled, bifid or shortened flagella, and erratic acrosomal development. Following immunoprecipitation and mass spectrometry, we could identify septin 10 (Sept10) as interactor of Adgb. The Sept10-Adgb interaction was confirmed both in vivo using testis lysates and in vitro by reciprocal co-immunoprecipitation experiments. Furthermore, the absence of Adgb leads to mislocalization of Sept10 in sperm, indicating defective manchette and sperm annulus formation. Finally, in vitro data suggest that Adgb contributes to Sept10 proteolysis in a calmodulin-dependent manner. Collectively, our results provide evidence that Adgb is essential for murine spermatogenesis and further suggest that Adgb is required for sperm head shaping via the manchette and proper flagellum formation.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Alexandre P Thiery et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Development of tooth shape is regulated by the enamel knot signalling centre, at least in mammals. Fgf signalling regulates differential proliferation between the enamel knot and adjacent dental epithelia during tooth development, leading to formation of the dental cusp. The presence of an enamel knot in non-mammalian vertebrates is debated given differences in signalling. Here, we show the conservation and restriction of fgf3, fgf10, and shh to the sites of future dental cusps in the shark (Scyliorhinus canicula), whilst also highlighting striking differences between the shark and mouse. We reveal shifts in tooth size, shape, and cusp number following small molecule perturbations of canonical Wnt signalling. Resulting tooth phenotypes mirror observed effects in mammals, where canonical Wnt has been implicated as an upstream regulator of enamel knot signalling. In silico modelling of shark dental morphogenesis demonstrates how subtle changes in activatory and inhibitory signals can alter tooth shape, resembling developmental phenotypes and cusp shapes observed following experimental Wnt perturbation. Our results support the functional conservation of an enamel knot-like signalling centre throughout vertebrates and suggest that varied tooth types from sharks to mammals follow a similar developmental bauplan. Lineage-specific differences in signalling are not sufficient in refuting homology of this signalling centre, which is likely older than teeth themselves.