Premium
Phosphatidylinositol‐specific‐phospholipase C cleaves urokinase plasminogen activator receptor from the cell surface and leads to inhibition of pemphigus‐IgG‐induced acantholysis in DJM‐1 cells, a squamous cell carcinoma line
Author(s) -
Asano S.,
Seishima M.,
Kitajima Y.
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
clinical and experimental dermatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.587
H-Index - 78
eISSN - 1365-2230
pISSN - 0307-6938
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2230.2001.00818.x
Subject(s) - urokinase receptor , pemphigus , acantholysis , plasmin , phospholipase c , cell culture , supar , chemistry , plasminogen activator , receptor , cell , cancer research , microbiology and biotechnology , immunology , biology , endocrinology , biochemistry , antibody , autoantibody , enzyme , genetics
We showed previously that pemphigus IgG enhanced both the activity of urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) in cultured cells and the expression of its receptor (uPAR) on uPA‐binding keratinocytes. In the present study, to clarify whether uPAR and uPA‐activated plasmin are actually involved in the blistering process after pemphigus IgG binding to the cell surface, we examined the effects of the following on uPAR expression and on cell–cell detachment in DJM‐1 cells, a squamous cell carcinoma line: (i) phosphatidylinositol‐specific phospholipase C (PI‐PLC) − which releases uPAR from the membrane surface into the culture medium by cleaving the glycosylphosphatidylinositol anchor thus inhibiting uPAR activity, and (ii) uPA inhibitors (tranexamic acid, aprotinin, p‐aminobenzonic acid and dexamethasone). Preincubation with PI‐PLC decreased dramatically the pemphigus IgG‐induced uPAR expression in a dose‐dependent manner, and inhibited pemphigus IgG‐induced cell–cell detachment at 10 µg/mL. On the other hand, tranexamic acid (15 m m ) inhibited pemphigus IgG‐induced cell–cell detachment without reduction of uPAR expression, although aprotinin, p‐aminobenzonic acid and dexamethasone failed to alter either of these parameters. Although uPAR expression on the pemphigus IgG‐bound cell surface and uPA activation may contribute significantly to the pathogenesis of acantholysis in pemphigus, the mechanisms are complicated and should be defined further.