JCB logo
Accuri Cytometers
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF, 506K)
Right arrow PPT slides of all figures
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JCB
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Xiao, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Devreotes, P. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Xiao, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Devreotes, P. N.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

J. Cell Biol.
© The Rockefeller University Press
0021-9525/97/10/365/10 $2.00
Volume 139, Number 2, October 20, 1997 365-374

Dynamic Distribution of Chemoattractant Receptors in Living Cells During Chemotaxis and Persistent Stimulation

Zhan Xiao,* Ning Zhang,* Douglas B. Murphy,Dagger and Peter N. Devreotes*

* Department of Biological Chemistry, and Dagger  Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21205

While the localization of chemoattractant receptors on randomly oriented cells has been previously studied by immunohistochemistry, the instantaneous distribution of receptors on living cells undergoing directed migration has not been determined. To do this, we replaced cAR1, the primary cAMP receptor of Dictyostelium, with a cAR1-green fluorescence protein fusion construct. We found that this chimeric protein is functionally indistinguishable from wild-type cAR1. By time-lapse imaging of single cells, we observed that the receptors remained evenly distributed on the cell surface and all of its projections during chemotaxis involving turns and reversals of polarity directed by repositioning of a chemoattractant-filled micropipet. Thus, cell polarization cannot result from a gradient-induced asymmetric distribution of chemoattractant receptors. Some newly extended pseudopods at migration fronts showed a transient drop in fluorescence signals, suggesting that the flow of receptors into these zones may slightly lag behind the protrusion process. Challenge with a uniform increase in chemoattractant, sufficient to cause a dramatic decrease in the affinity of surface binding sites and cell desensitization, also did not significantly alter the distribution profile. Hence, the induced reduction in binding activity and cellular sensitivity cannot be due to receptor relocalization. The chimeric receptors were able to "cap" rapidly during treatment with Con A, suggesting that they are mobile in the plane of the cell membrane. This capping was not influenced by pretreatment with chemoattractant.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:



  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents