Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About MCB
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Molecular and Cellular Biology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About MCB
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Articles

The Cell Surface Receptor Tartan Is a Potential In Vivo Substrate for the Receptor Tyrosine Phosphatase Ptp52F

Lakshmi Bugga, Anuradha Ratnaparkhi, Kai Zinn
Lakshmi Bugga
1Division of Biology, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anuradha Ratnaparkhi
1Division of Biology, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125
2Agharkar Research Institute, Animal Sciences Division (Zoology), G. G. Agharkar Road, Pune 411004, India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kai Zinn
1Division of Biology, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: zinnk@caltech.edu
DOI: 10.1128/MCB.01764-08
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • FIG. 1.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 1.

    Selection of Trn in the yeast screen: growth on −Ade plates depends on both Ptp52F and c-Src. The left plate has streaks of yeast colonies (five independent colonies for each) transformed with Trn-AD (LEU+), with or without Ptp52F-trap-DBD or Ptp99A-trap-DBD, with or without c-Src, as indicated. All of these grew on plates lacking leucine (−LEU). The right plate has streaks of the same yeast colonies on plates lacking adenine (−ADE). Only the yeast with Ptp52F-trap-DBD and c-Src could express the ADE2 gene and grow on these plates.

  • FIG. 2.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 2.

    Tartan is tyrosine phosphorylated in v-Src-transfected S2 cells. (A) Anti-GFP immunoblot of lysates (L) and anti-GFP IPs (I) from cells transfected with the Trn cyto-GFP plasmid. As indicated by “+” and “−” signs above the blot, cells were left untreated (lanes 1 and 2), treated with pervanadate (lanes 3 and 4), or cotransfected with D-Abl (lanes 5 and 6) or D-Src64B plasmids (lanes 7 and 8). The immunoglobulin G heavy chain (IgG HC), unphosphorylated Trn-cyto-GFP, and tyrosine-phosphorylated Trn-cyto-GFP bands (P-Trn) are labeled. (B) Anti-PY immunoblot of the same samples. The IgG HC and P-Trn bands are labeled. (C) Anti-PY immunoblot of lysates and anti-GFP IPs from cells transfected with the Trn cyto-GFP plasmid. Cells were left untreated (lane 1), cotransfected with the v-Src plasmid (lanes 2 and 3), or treated with pervanadate (lane 4). The IgG HC and P-Trn bands are labeled. Note that the P-Trn band in lane 3 migrates more rapidly than that in lane 4, suggesting that Trn is less heavily tyrosine phosphorylated in v-Src-expressing cells than in pervanadate-treated cells.

  • FIG. 3.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 3.

    Phosphorylated Trn binds to the Ptp52F substrate-trapping mutant and is dephosphorylated by wild-type Ptp52F in S2 cells. (A) An anti-Myc immunoblot of lysates (L), anti-Myc IPs (I), and post-IP supernatants (P) from cells that were cotransfected with the Trn-FL and v-Src plasmids. As indicated by “+” and “−” signs above the blot, these cells were also transfected with the Ptp52F-trap-Myc plasmid (lanes 1 to 3) or the Ptp52F-wild-type-Myc plasmid (lanes 4 to 6). The region of the blot containing the ∼65-kDa Ptp52F-Myc band is shown. (B) Anti-Trn immunoblot of the same samples. Note that a strong Trn band was present in anti-Myc IPs of cells cotransfected with Ptp52F-trap-Myc (lane 2), but only a very faint signal was seen when Ptp52F-wild type-Myc was cotransfected (lane 5). This shows that the substrate-trapping mutant bound selectively to Trn-FL. (C) Anti-GFP immunoblot of lysate (L), an anti-GFP IP, and an anti-Trn IP from cells transfected with the Trn-FL-GFP plasmid. An ∼100-kDa band was present (labeled as Trn FL-GFP), as expected. An ∼60-kDa band that is likely to represent a cleavage product was also present (labeled as cleaved Trn-GFP). The cleavage site must be in the XC domain, close to the membrane, based on the size of this product. The IgG heavy chain (IgG HC) band is also labeled. (D) Anti-PY blot of anti-GFP IPs from S2 cells cotransfected with the Trn FL-GFP and v-Src plasmids, together with either the Ptp52F-trap-Myc (lane 1) or Ptp52F-wild type-Myc (lane 2) plasmids. Note that both the Trn-FL-GFP and cleaved Trn-GFP bands were tyrosine phosphorylated in lane 1; similar levels of phosphorylation were observed when the trap was not cotransfected. When Ptp52F-wild type-Myc was cotransfected, the PY signal was barely detectable for Trn-FL-GFP and undetectable for the cleaved product. This shows that Ptp52F caused dephosphorylation of v-Src-phosphorylated Trn-FL-GFP and the cleavage product. (E) Anti-Myc immunoblot of lysates (L), anti-GFP IPs (GI), and anti-Myc IPs (MI) from cells transfected with Trn-FL-GFP. Cells were also transfected with Ptp52F-trap-Myc (lanes 1 to 6) or Ptp52F-wild type-Myc (lanes 7 to 12) plasmids, with (lanes 4 to 6 and lanes 10 to 12) or without (lanes 1 to 3 and lanes 7 to 9) the v-Src plasmid. The region of the blot containing the ∼65-kDa Ptp52F-Myc band is shown. Note that this band was detected in anti-GFP IPs from cells cotransfected with Ptp52F-trap-Myc and v-Src (lane 5) but was not detectable in anti-GFP IPs from trap-transfected cells lacking the kinase (lane 2). A very faint signal was observed in anti-GFP IPs from cells transfected with Ptp52F-wild type-Myc and the kinase (lane 11). This shows that the substrate-trapping mutant bound to Trn-FL-GFP in a phosphorylation-dependent manner. (F) Anti-PY immunoblot of the same anti-GFP (GI) or anti-Myc (MI) IPs. Note that, as in panel D, the phosphorylated Trn-FL-GFP and cleavage product bands were present when Ptp52F-trap-Myc and v-Src were both transfected (lane 3) but were absent when Ptp52F-wild type-Myc and v-Src were transfected (lane 7). Faint signals were present for both the Trn-FL-GFP and cleavage product bands in lane 4, which is an anti-Myc IP from cells transfected with Ptp52F-trap-Myc and v-Src; this confirms that phosphorylated Trn-FL-GFP associated with the trap. The IgG HC band is also labeled.

  • FIG. 4.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 4.

    Phosphorylated Trn binds selectively to the Ptp52F substrate-trapping mutant in vitro. (A) Anti-PY immunoblot of a pervanadate-treated S2 cell lysate incubated with the indicated amounts (in μg) of Ptp52F-wild type-GST. (B) Anti-PY immunoblot of an anti-GFP IP from a lysate of pervanadate-treated S2 cells transfected with the Trn-cyto-GFP plasmid. The bead-bound protein was incubated with the indicated amounts (in μg) of Ptp52F-wild type-GST (100-μl reaction volume, 1 h, 20°C). The Trn-cyto-GFP band is indicated; other bands on the gel are presumably background. Note that the PY signal for Trn-cyto-GFP was eliminated by 1 μg of Ptp52F-wild type-GST (lane 2), showing that it dephosphorylated Trn, but many bands in Fig. 4A (lane 2) were also diminished in intensity by this same amount of fusion protein. (C) Anti-PY immunoblot of a GST “pulldown” experiment in which lysate from pervanadate-treated S2 cells transfected with the Trn-cyto-GFP plasmid was incubated with the indicated amounts of Ptp52F-trap-GST (in μg; 100-μl volume), followed by precipitation of the trap-bound proteins with glutathione-agarose beads. Only a single prominent band, of ∼85 kDa, was observed. The Trn-cyto-GFP band (∼60 kDa) was not detected. (D) Anti-PY immunoblot of a GST pulldown experiment in which lysate from pervanadate-treated untransfected or Trn-FL-transfected S2 cells was incubated with 10 μg of Ptp52F-trap-GST or Ptp52F-wild type-GST, followed by precipitation of the bound proteins as in panel C. Note that lysate from these cells produces a continuous smear but that only a single band is pulled down by Ptp52F-trap-GST, and the intensity of this band is increased when Trn-FL is overexpressed. (E) An anti-Trn immunoblot of transfected cell pulldowns from the same experiment. The Trn band is observed when either Ptp52F-trap-GST or Ptp52F-wild type-GST is used for pulldown, showing that wild-type Ptp52F dephosphorylates Trn but can then remain bound to it.

  • FIG. 5.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 5.

    Ptp52F and tartan mutants have the same motor axon guidance phenotypes, and the genes display a dosage-dependent interaction. Motor axons (brown) in late-stage 16/early-stage 17 embryo “fillets” were stained with MAb 1D4, using HRP immunohistochemistry for visualization, and photographed using differential interference contrast optics. (A) Two hemisegments in a wild-type (wt) control embryo. SNa, the branch that exhibits phenotypes in both of these mutants, is labeled. Its bifurcation point is indicated by white arrows in both segments. The ISN and ISNb (out of focus) are also labeled. Muscle fibers are labeled by number (compare to diagram of panel E). The anterior SNa branch normally extends dorsally along muscle 22 and then across muscle 23 to reach muscle 24, and the posterior branch extends across muscle 5 to reach muscle 8. (B) Two hemisegments in a Ptp52F/+, trn/+ embryo (lacking one wild-type copy of each gene). The anterior branch of the SNa is missing in both segments. The approximate points at which bifurcation would have occurred if the anterior branches were present are indicated by asterisks. (C) Three hemisegments in a Ptp52F/Ptp52F embryo. The anterior branch of the SNa is missing, truncated, or misguided in all three. In the left-hand hemisegment the branch is missing, while in the middle hemisegment axons branch off near the normal bifurcation point (asterisks) but then grow posteriorly and rejoin the posterior SNa branch, forming a loop (arrowhead). In the right-hand hemisegment a thin and truncated anterior branch is observed (arrowhead). (D) Two hemisegments in a trn/trn embryo. In the right-hand segment, the anterior branch is missing, while in the left-hand hemisegment a single axon appears to have extended partway along the normal anterior branch pathway (arrowhead), leaving the SNa near the normal bifurcation point (asterisks). (E) Diagram of the SNa and adjacent muscle fibers in wild-type. The muscles are indicated as semitransparent to show their layering. The deepest (most external) muscles are 21 to 24, and they are overlaid by muscles 5, 12, 13, and 8. SNa extends underneath (external to) 12 and 13. (F) Bar graph of phenotypic penetrance for SNa guidance errors, in control (balancer/+); trn/+; Ptp52F/+; Ptp52F/+, trn/+; trn/trn; and Ptp52F/Ptp52F cells. The numbers of hemisegments examined and the distribution among phenotypic classes are shown in Table 2.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
  • TABLE 1.

    Summary of the modified yeast two-hybrid screen for RPTP substrates

    Probe (kinase plus bait)GeneType of proteinNo. of clones foundAdditional interacting probe(s)a
    src + 10D Xmas-2 RNA binding1src + 52F
    CG12533Calponin homology (actin binding)910D
    src + 52F trn LRR cell surface receptor1None
    CG15022Proline rich1None
    CG10283No defined domains1None
    src + 69DCG9418DNA binding, HMG box469D
    src + 99A csp Cysteine string protein (synaptic)199A, 10D, src + 10D
    CG11110Leader peptidase199A
    • ↵ a That is, additional probe(s) with which the protein specified in columns 2 and 3 interacts.

  • TABLE 2.

    Quantitation of SNa phenotypes

    GenotypeNo. of hemisegments (A2 to A6) scoredPhenotypic percentage
    Missing branchesExtra branchesBypassTotal
    balancer/+(control)3395106
    trn/+ 1784206
    Ptp52F/+ 1313003
    Ptp52F/+, trn/+ 198261027
    trn/trn 1923012244
    Ptp52F/Ptp52F 169424248

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental material

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental file 1 - Fig. S1 (Ptp52F overexpression phenotype suppression by removal of Trn function)
      Zipped JPG file, 684K.
    • Supplemental file 2 - Legend to Fig. S1
      Zipped Word file, 5K.
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
The Cell Surface Receptor Tartan Is a Potential In Vivo Substrate for the Receptor Tyrosine Phosphatase Ptp52F
Lakshmi Bugga, Anuradha Ratnaparkhi, Kai Zinn
Molecular and Cellular Biology May 2009, 29 (12) 3390-3400; DOI: 10.1128/MCB.01764-08

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Molecular and Cellular Biology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Cell Surface Receptor Tartan Is a Potential In Vivo Substrate for the Receptor Tyrosine Phosphatase Ptp52F
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Molecular and Cellular Biology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Molecular and Cellular Biology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
The Cell Surface Receptor Tartan Is a Potential In Vivo Substrate for the Receptor Tyrosine Phosphatase Ptp52F
Lakshmi Bugga, Anuradha Ratnaparkhi, Kai Zinn
Molecular and Cellular Biology May 2009, 29 (12) 3390-3400; DOI: 10.1128/MCB.01764-08
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Drosophila Proteins
membrane proteins
Protein Tyrosine Phosphatases

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About MCB
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #MCBJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0270-7306; Online ISSN: 1098-5549