HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 281, Issue 47, 35593-35597, November 24, 2006

This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 281/47/35593    most recent R600027200v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Weis, W. I. Articles by Nelson, W. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Weis, W. I. Articles by Nelson, W. J. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Minireview

Re-solving the Cadherin-Catenin-Actin Conundrum^*

William I. Weis¹ and W. James Nelson^¶2

From the Departments of Structural Biology, ^¶Biological Sciences, and Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305

	INTRODUCTION

TOP INTRODUCTION Potential Protein-Protein... Direct Test of Protein... Reconciling the "Old" with... What Connects Actin to... REFERENCES

 
Cell-cell adhesion plays critical roles in establishing and maintaining tissue architecture and function (1, 2). In these roles, cell-cell adhesion must be adaptable and (depending on the biological circumstance) weak, dynamic, or strong. Different adhesion structures (adherens junctions, tight junctions, desmosomes) regulate cell-cell adhesion, and each comprises distinct membrane-bound adhesion proteins that interact with the cytoskeleton.

Of the proteins that form these adhesion structures, the Ca²⁺-dependent classical cadherins found in adherens junctions have critical roles in controlling the specificity, organization, and dynamics of cell-cell adhesions. Cadherins are required for the formation of the first overt forms of tissue differentiation in early vertebrate and invertebrate development (3, 4). The specificity of adhesion among different cell types depends upon the strength of binding between and surface concentration of cadherins (5, 6).

During Ca²⁺-dependent cell-cell adhesion, cadherins rapidly concentrate at sites of cell-cell contact through an active process involving the actin cytoskeleton (7), which reorganizes as cell-cell contacts form (8, 9). Actomyosin contractility may also play a role in cell-cell adhesion (10) and remodeling of cell and tissue structures in development (11, 12).

	Potential Protein-Protein Linkages between Cadherins and Actin Cytoskeleton

TOP INTRODUCTION Potential Protein-Protein... Direct Test of Protein... Reconciling the "Old" with... What Connects Actin to... REFERENCES

 
Classical cadherins bind directly to several cytoplasmic proteins including -catenin, plakoglobin (a close relative of -catenin), and p120. p120 may regulate the cadherin-actin cytoskeleton nexus indirectly by locally controlling the activity of the Rho inhibitor p190RhoGAP and thereby activation of Rho and Rac (13) and the rate of cadherin endocytosis (14). Plakoglobin and -catenin play a more direct role by binding to -catenin (15), an actin filament binding/bundling protein that also binds other actin-binding proteins (16).

-Catenin binds and bundles actin filaments (17) and has been shown to form binary interactions with several actin-binding proteins, including vinculin (18), -actinin (19), spectrin (20), ZO-1 (21), afadin (22), ajuba (23), and proteins that regulate actin assembly including formins (24). In some cases, these interactions were demonstrated directly by binding between purified recombinant proteins, whereas others were indicated by yeast two-hybrid assay, co-immunoprecipitation, or subcellular co-localization. Based upon these data it is easy to build protein-protein interaction maps in which -catenin links the cadherin-catenin complex to actin (Fig. 1A).

Several cell lines that lack endogenous -catenin have been used to investigate -catenin functions. Surprisingly, these cells form cell-cell adhesions and aggregate in the presence of extracellular Ca²⁺, although not as quickly or irreversibly as cells "rescued" by expression of ectopic -catenin (25, 26). Equally surprising, the most significant effects of genetic deletion of -catenin in vivo were increased cell migration, shortening of the cell cycle, increased proliferation (hyperplasia), and decreased apoptosis rather than just the disruption of cell-cell adhesion (27, 28). These effects are very different from those caused by genetic deletion of cadherin, which results in complete disruption of cell adhesion and tissue architecture (3, 4).

	Direct Test of Protein Complexes Linking Cadherin to Actin Cytoskeleton

TOP INTRODUCTION Potential Protein-Protein... Direct Test of Protein... Reconciling the "Old" with... What Connects Actin to... REFERENCES

 
The ability of catenins to physically connect cadherins to actin was tested by direct binding studies with purified proteins and measurement of protein dynamics in live cells (29, 30). When E-cadherin, -catenin, and -catenin were mixed at concentrations that were both sufficient to form a ternary complex and 17 times higher than the estimated K_D for the -catenin-actin interaction (17), a fraction of -catenin, but neither cadherin nor -catenin, cosedimented with F-actin, implying that -catenin cannot bind to -catenin and actin simultaneously (29) (Fig. 1B). Potentially there are two concerns with this conclusion. First, -catenin can form homodimers that compete with -catenin and lower the effective affinity of --catenin interaction (see below). Therefore, a chimera comprising the -catenin binding site of -catenin fused to -catenin was made to create a high effective concentration of the partners to ensure that all -catenin is bound to -catenin (31). This chimera did not sediment with F-actin, confirming that binding of -catenin to the E-cadherin/-catenin complex and actin is mutually exclusive (30). Second, the bacterially expressed proteins used in these experiments lacked post-translational modifications that might be required for binding to actin, or a required co-factor was missing. Therefore, binding studies were performed with phosphorylated proteins and on E-cadherin embedded in plasma membrane patches from Madin-Darby canine kidney cells in the presence of cytosol to provide endogenous factors. Even under these conditions, the membrane-bound E-cadherin/-catenin/-catenin complex did not bind F-actin (29). The lack of binding of the E-cadherin/catenin complex to actin was unanticipated and highlights the problem of extrapolating data from binary to higher order interactions.

The allosteric behavior of -catenin, in which binding to one partner inhibits binding to the other, appears to be related to its oligomeric state as either a monomer or homodimer (30) (Fig. 1B). Structural data revealed that the sites for -catenin homodimerization and -catenin binding overlap (31). This implies that -catenin should bind more strongly to -catenin monomer than to the homodimer because the homodimer would have to dissociate to allow -catenin to bind (31). Direct binding studies showed that -catenin preferentially bound to -catenin monomer, whereas actin bound more strongly to -catenin homodimer (30). Moreover, because preparations of -catenin monomer are always contaminated with homodimer (30), the observed binding of -catenin "monomer" to actin is likely due to contaminating homodimer. These data as well as differences in proteolytic sensitivity of the -catenin monomer, homodimer, and /-catenin chimera (the latter representing the -catenin-bound form) (30) indicate that different molecular conformations are associated with the -catenin (monomer) and actin (homodimer) binding states of -catenin.

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 1. Models of how the cadherin-catenin complex is linked to and regulates the actin cytoskeleton. A, model based upon the assumption that -catenin binds simultaneously to -catenin and actin filaments. B, model based upon data from Refs 29 and 30 that -catenin monomers and dimers regulate binding to -catenin and actin filaments, respectively, and that -catenin also inhibits Arp2/3-mediated actin branching and promotes actin bundling. See text for details.

If actin is bound directly to the cadherin/catenin complex it might be expected that the diffusion properties of these proteins are similar. Fluorescence recovery after photo-bleaching measurements in live cells demonstrated that E-cadherin, -catenin, and -catenin had essentially identical recovery half-times and immobile fractions, whereas actin had a much faster recovery and a considerably smaller immobile fraction (29). Importantly, deletion of either the cadherin cytoplasmic domain or the -catenin actin-binding domain, i.e. breaking putative links between E-cadherin and -catenin to the cytoskeleton, had no effect on E-cadherin or -catenin dynamics. Blocking actin polymerization or stabilizing filaments also had no effect on the dynamics of the cadherin/catenin complex. Taken together, these results are incompatible with a stable linkage between the E-cadherin/catenin complex and actin, even one mediated by multiple weak interactions as suggested in a Velcro model (33).

	Reconciling the "Old" with the "New": What Is the Role of -Catenin?

TOP INTRODUCTION Potential Protein-Protein... Direct Test of Protein... Reconciling the "Old" with... What Connects Actin to... REFERENCES

 
Discussion about the significance of these new results (33, 34) has revolved around studies of cadherin--catenin fusion proteins, which bypass -catenin and assume a direct linkage from cadherin to actin. Using L-cells, which lack endogenous cadherin but express both - and -catenin, Nagafuchi et al. (35) expressed chimeras of E-cadherin lacking its cytoplasmic domain fused to either full-length -catenin, the N-terminal 508 residues of -catenin, or the C-terminal 400 residues of -catenin that include the actin-binding domain. The cadherin/-catenin full-length and cadherin/-catenin actin-binding domain chimeras induced cell-cell adhesion (35) and had reduced diffusion in the plane of the membrane suggesting that they were anchored to the underlying cytoskeleton (36). Similarly, a chimera of E-cadherin linked to a fusion of the N-terminal domain of -catenin and the C-terminal actin-binding domain of vinculin induced cell-cell adhesion in cells that lacked endogenous vinculin and -catenin (25, 26). These results have been interpreted as evidence that -catenin plays a central role in cell-cell adhesion by linking the cadherin/-catenin complex to the actin cytoskeleton either directly or indirectly through vinculin or ZO-1. However, because -catenin cannot bind to -catenin and actin simultaneously, chimeras that bypass -catenin cannot represent the properties of the cadherin-catenin complex in a real adhesive contact.

Nonetheless, how can the results with chimeric E-cadherin/-catenin proteins be reconciled with direct evidence that -catenin does not bind simultaneously to the cadherin/-catenin complex and actin? A simple explanation is that the chimeras enabled the delivery of sufficient amounts of cadherin to the cell surface to induce cell-cell adhesion; recall that the number and concentration of cadherin molecules at the surface can profoundly influence cell adhesiveness and sorting (6, 37). Unfortunately, the level of surface-expressed cadherin was not quantified in these studies. In this context, it is noteworthy that the chimera of E-cadherin fused to the N-terminal region of -catenin had an abnormal subcellular distribution and did not induce cell-cell adhesion (35). Cadherin/-catenin chimeras also appear to restore the correct migratory behavior of follicle cells in Drosophila oogenesis (38). Again, these observations may be due in part to restoring cell-surface cadherin molecules to cells genetically deleted for E-cadherin.

Other published data do not support a linkage between actin and cadherin-bound -catenin. First, a chimera of E-cadherin fused to residues 508–643 of -catenin conferred adhesion to cells (26), despite the fact that this portion of -catenin does not include the binding sites for actin, which spans residues 671–906 (22), vinculin or ZO-1 (25, 26), or the homodimerization site (31). Second, it has been reported that the cadherin complex is less soluble in buffers containing non-ionic detergents, which is taken to indicate incorporation into the detergent-insoluble cytoskeleton (39–41). However, E-cadherin, -catenin, and plakoglobin were found in a detergent-insoluble fraction of cells lacking -catenin (42), indicating that -catenin is not needed to confer resistance of E-cadherin to extraction with non-ionic detergents. Moreover, E-cadherin/-catenin chimeras lacking the -catenin actin-binding domain showed a similar amount of resistance to detergent extractability compared with the full-length protein (26, 35), calling into question the interpretation that detergent insolubility is a direct readout of specific cytoskeletal association.

Because the simple model in which -catenin physically connects the cadherin–-catenin complex to actin does not hold up to experimental scrutiny, alternative roles of -catenin in regulating actin dynamics were investigated. It was found that -catenin suppressed Arp2/3-mediated actin polymerization by directly competing with Arp2/3 for actin filaments (30) (Fig. 1B). Because this activity required actin binding, the -catenin homodimer was more potent than the monomer in suppressing Arp2/3 activity with complete suppression observed at 5 µM -catenin. Because the concentration of -catenin in Madin-Darby canine kidney cell cytosol is 0.6 µM (30), the local concentration of -catenin would have to increase 10-fold to affect Arp2/3, a condition that could simply arise by clustering the cadherin complex at cell-cell contacts (see below).

What might be the physiological significance of the negative regulation of Arp2/3 complex by -catenin? During cell-cell adhesion actin undergoes a dramatic reorganization that could be mediated by changes in the local distribution and concentration of -catenin (Fig. 1B). Cells form transient contacts mediated by cadherins present on highly dynamic lamellipodia (7) driven by Arp2/3-mediated polymerization of branched actin networks perpendicular to the membrane (43). As the contact matures, cadherins become concentrated on the opposed surfaces, and lamellipodial movements slow and eventually cease as a stable cell-cell contact forms (8, 9). At the same time, actin filaments at mature adherens junctions are reorganized into linear, unbranched bundles parallel to the membrane (44) (Fig. 1B).

The newly uncovered properties of -catenin can be applied to a model that explains these changes in membrane dynamics and actin organization during formation of intercellular junctions (Fig. 1B). In non-adherent cells, cadherin and associated -catenin, which binds strongly to cadherin and appears to be required for transport of cadherin to the cell surface (45), are present on lamellipodial membranes (7, 36). Monomeric -catenin, which appears to predominate in the cytosol (30), binds to the cadherin/-catenin complex at the plasma membrane (46). As cadherins on opposing cell surfaces engage, the membranes are brought into close proximity, which favors more cadherin-cadherin interactions. This produces a local clustering of cadherins (36, 47) and thereby increases the local concentration of -catenin bound in the E-cadherin/catenin complex. Because -catenin bound to the E-cadherin/catenin complex can exchange with cytosolic -catenin (30), -catenin that dissociates from the clustered E-cadherin/-catenin complex will be at a high local concentration, favoring homodimer formation. As a consequence, -catenin homodimers locally inhibit the Arp2/3 complex, thereby reducing actin branching and lamellipodial activity and induce filament bundling. It has been reported that -catenin can promote linear actin cable formation by formins, which would also induce actin remodeling locally (24), although this has not been tested with purified components.

Could this model explain some of the effects of the cadherin/-catenin chimeras described above? Unexplained phenotypes of the transfected L-cells were defects in cytokinesis and decreased cell motility (35). Because -catenin is bypassed, the -catenin in the chimeras would retain actin binding activity that suppresses Arp2/3 activity at the contact and prevent changes in actin organization needed for proper cytokinesis (35). Likewise, the decreased motility of these cells can be explained by constitutive suppression of Arp2/3 at the prospective leading edge of a migratory cell. Indeed, PC-9 lung carcinoma cells, which lack -catenin, are highly invasive and motile, properties that are reversed by expression of -catenin (48), again consistent with the ability of -catenin to suppress Arp2/3. Moreover, in both of the L-cell (35) and Drosophila oocyte (38) studies cited above, the cells expressed endogenous -catenin. For chimeric molecules containing the N-terminal region of -catenin, which harbors the homodimerization domain, structural data (31) predict that dimers between endogenous -catenin monomer and the fusion protein could occur and thereby provide a further increase in local -catenin concentration. This could provide sufficient -catenin to regulate actin at the junction.

	What Connects Actin to the Adherens Junction?

TOP INTRODUCTION Potential Protein-Protein... Direct Test of Protein... Reconciling the "Old" with... What Connects Actin to... REFERENCES

 
Actin cables are associated with developing and mature adherens junctions. Furthermore, the movement of the adherens junction during cellularization of the Drosophila embryo and other morphogenetic changes rely on actomyosin activity (12). It is not clear, however, whether actin always needs to be anchored to other adherens junction components except during periods of active constriction.

If the cadherin/catenin complex does not interact directly with actin, what anchors actin in the adherens junction? Several plausible candidates have been identified. First, the nectin adhesion molecules are also found in adherens junctions (49). The cytoplasmic domain of nectin binds to l-afadin, which binds to both actin and -catenin (22). The ability of afadin to form a quaternary complex with nectin, -catenin, and actin has yet to be tested, however. Second, the C terminus of -catenin features a conserved PDZ binding motif that interacts with the scaffold protein Lin7 (50), which in turn binds through CASK to other components of the actin cytoskeleton (51). Whether these interactions are important for cell adhesion is unclear because deletion of the -catenin C-terminal region in Drosophila has no apparent effect on adherens junction function (52). Third, Shroom is another PDZ domain-containing actin-binding protein required for neural tube morphogenesis that localizes to adherens junctions (53). Fourth, Vezatin is a transmembrane protein of adherens junctions that links myosin to the cadherin-catenin complex (54). Finally, a recent report identified an interaction between the synaptotagmin-like protein Bitesize found near the site of adherens junction formation and Moesin, an actin binding member of the ERM family of cytoskeletal proteins; significantly, bitesize mutants fail to establish proper actin organization at the adherens junctions during Drosophila cellularization (55). An essential step in understanding cell and tissue morphogenesis will be the development of rigorous assays to test the roles of these and potentially other candidate proteins in linking actin to cell-cell adhesion structures.

	FOOTNOTES

 
^* This minireview will be reprinted in the 2006 Minireview Compendium, which will be available in January, 2007. Work in the authors' laboratories is supported by National Institutes of Health Grants GM56169 (to W. I. W.) and GM35527 (W. J. N.).

¹ To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: bill.weis{at}stanford.edu. ² To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: wjnelson{at}stanford.edu.

	REFERENCES

TOP INTRODUCTION Potential Protein-Protein... Direct Test of Protein... Reconciling the "Old" with... What Connects Actin to... REFERENCES

 

1. Takeichi, M. (1995) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 7, 619–627[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Gumbiner, B. M. (2005) Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 6, 622–634[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
3. Larue, L., Antos, C., Butz, S., Huber, O., Delmas, V., Dominis, M., and Kemler, R. (1996) Development 122, 3185–3194[Abstract]
4. Wang, F., Dumstrei, K., Haag, T., and Hartenstein, V. (2004) Dev. Biol. 270, 350–363[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
5. Nose, A., Nagafuchi, A., and Takeichi, M. (1988) Cell 54, 993–1001[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6. Foty, R. A., and Steinberg, M. S. (2005) Dev. Biol. 278, 255–263[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7. Adams, C. L., and Nelson, W. J. (1998) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 10, 572–577[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. Ehrlich, J. S., Hansen, M. D., and Nelson, W. J. (2002) Dev. Cell 3, 259–270[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Vaezi, A., Bauer, C., Vasioukhin, V., and Fuchs, E. (2002) Dev. Cell 3, 367–381[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
10. Shewan, A. M., Maddugoda, M., Kraemer, A., Stehbens, S. J., Verma, S., Kovacs, E. M., and Yap, A. S. (2005) Mol. Biol. Cell 16, 4531–4542[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Young, P. E., Pesacreta, T. C., and Kiehart, D. P. (1991) Development 111, 1–14[Abstract]
12. Dawes-Hoang, R. E., Parmar, K. M., Christiansen, A. E., Phelps, C. B., Brand, A. H., and Wieschaus, E. F. (2005) Development 132, 4165–4178[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Anastasiadis, P. Z., and Reynolds, A. B. (2001) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 13, 604–610[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Davis, M. A., Ireton, R. C., and Reynolds, A. B. (2003) J. Cell Biol. 163, 525–534[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Aberle, H., Butz, S., Stappert, J., Weissig, H., Kemler, R., and Hoschuetzky, H. (1994) J. Cell Sci. 107, 3655–3663[Abstract]
16. Kobielak, A., and Fuchs, E. (2004) Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 5, 614–625[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17. Rimm, D. L., Koslov, E. R., Kebriaei, P., Cianci, C. D., and Morrow, J. S. (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92, 8813–8817[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Weiss, E. E., Kroemker, M., Rudiger, A. H., Jockusch, B. M., and Rudiger, M. (1998) J. Cell Biol. 141, 755–764[Abstract/Free Full Text]
19. Knudsen, K. A., Soler, A. P., Johnson, K. R., and Wheelock, M. J. (1995) J. Cell Biol. 130, 67–77[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Pradhan, D., Lombardo, C. R., Roe, S., Rimm, D. L., and Morrow, J. S. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 4175–4181[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Itoh, M., Nagafuchi, A., Moroi, S., and Tsukita, S. (1997) J. Cell Biol. 138, 181–192[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Pokutta, S., Drees, F., Takai, Y., Nelson, W. J., and Weis, W. I. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 18868–18874[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Marie, H., Pratt, S. J., Betson, M., Epple, H., Kittler, J. T., Meek, L., Moss, S. J., Troyanovsky, S., Attwell, D., Longmore, G. D., and Braga, V. M. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 1220–1228[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Kobielak, A., Pasolli, H. A., and Fuchs, E. (2004) Nat. Cell Biol. 6, 21–30[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
25. Watabe-Uchida, M., Uchida, N., Imamura, Y., Nagafuchi, A., Fujimoto, K., Uemura, T., Vermeulen, S., van Roy, F., Adamson, E. D., and Takeichi, M. (1998) J. Cell Biol. 142, 847–857[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26. Imamura, Y., Itoh, M., Maeno, Y., Tsukita, S., and Nagafuchi, A. (1999) J. Cell Biol. 144, 1311–1322[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Vasioukhin, V., Bauer, C., Degenstein, L., Wise, B., and Fuchs, E. (2001) Cell 104, 605–617[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
28. Lien, W. H., Klezovitch, O., Fernandez, T. E., Delrow, J., and Vasioukhin, V. (2006) Science 311, 1609–1612[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Yamada, S., Pokutta, S., Drees, F., Weis, W. I., and Nelson, W. J. (2005) Cell 123, 889–901[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30. Drees, F., Pokutta, S., Yamada, S., Nelson, W. J., and Weis, W. I. (2005) Cell 123, 903–915[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
31. Pokutta, S., and Weis, W. I. (2000) Mol. Cell 5, 533–543[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
32. Nathke, I. S., Hinck, L., Swedlow, J. R., Papkoff, J., and Nelson, W. J. (1994) J. Cell Biol. 125, 1341–1352[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Burridge, K. (2006) Nature 440, 38–39[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
34. Gates, J., and Peifer, M. (2005) Cell 123, 769–772[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
35. Nagafuchi, A., Ishihara, S., and Tsukita, S. (1994) J. Cell Biol. 127, 235–245[Abstract/Free Full Text]
36. Sako, Y., Nagafuchi, A., Tsukita, S., Takeichi, M., and Kusumi, A. (1998) J. Cell Biol. 140, 1227–1240[Abstract/Free Full Text]
37. Steinberg, M. S., and Takeichi, M. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91, 206–209[Abstract/Free Full Text]
38. Pacquelet, A., and Rorth, P. (2005) J. Cell Biol. 170, 803–812[Abstract/Free Full Text]
39. McCrea, P. D., and Gumbiner, B. M. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 4514–4520[Abstract/Free Full Text]
40. Nagafuchi, A., and Takeichi, M. (1988) EMBO J. 7, 3679–3684[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
41. Ozawa, M., Baribault, H., and Kemler, R. (1989) EMBO J. 8, 1711–1717[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
42. van Hengel, J., Gohon, L., Bruyneel, E., Vermeulen, S., Cornelissen, M., Mareel, M., and von Roy, F. (1997) J. Cell Biol. 137, 1103–1116[Abstract/Free Full Text]
43. Pollard, T. D., and Borisy, G. G. (2003) Cell 112, 453–465[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
44. Hirokawa, N., Keller, T. C., 3rd, Chasan, R., and Mooseker, M. S. (1983) J. Cell Biol. 96, 1325–1336[Abstract/Free Full Text]
45. Chen, Y. T., Stewart, D. B., and Nelson, W. J. (1999) J. Cell Biol. 144, 687–699[Abstract/Free Full Text]
46. Hinck, L., Nathke, I. S., Papkoff, J., and Nelson, W. J. (1994) J. Cell Biol. 125, 1327–1340[Abstract/Free Full Text]
47. Chen, C. P., Posy, S., Ben-Shaul, A., Shapiro, L., and Honig, B. H. (2005) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 102, 8531–8536[Abstract/Free Full Text]
48. Watabe, M., Nagafuchi, A., Tsukita, S., and Takeichi, M. (1994) J. Cell Biol. 127, 247–256[Abstract/Free Full Text]
49. Takai, Y., and Nakanishi, H. (2003) J. Cell Sci. 116, 17–27[Abstract/Free Full Text]
50. Perego, C., Vanoni, C., Massari, S., Longhi, R., and Pietrini, G. (2000) EMBO J. 19, 3978–3989[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
51. Hsueh, Y. P. (2006) Curr. Med. Chem. 13, 1915–1927[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
52. Cox, R. T., Kirkpatrick, C., and Peifer, M. (1996) J. Cell Biol. 134, 133–148[Abstract/Free Full Text]
53. Hildebrand, J. D. (2005) J. Cell Sci. 118, 5191–5203[Abstract/Free Full Text]
54. Kussel-Andermann, P., El-Amraoui, A., Safieddine, S., Nouaille, S., Perfettini, I., Lecuit, M., Cossart, P., Wolfrum, U., and Petit, C. (2000) EMBO J. 19, 6020–6029[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
55. Pilot, F., Philippe, J. M., Lemmers, C., and Lecuit, T. (2006) Nature 442, 580–584[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Hammerschmidt and D. Wedlich Regulated adhesion as a driving force of gastrulation movements Development, November 15, 2008; 135(22): 3625 - 3641. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Follonier, S. Schaub, J.-J. Meister, and B. Hinz Myofibroblast communication is controlled by intercellular mechanical coupling J. Cell Sci., October 15, 2008; 121(20): 3305 - 3316. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Kiss, R. B. Troyanovsky, and S. M. Troyanovsky p120-Catenin Is a Key Component of the Cadherin-{gamma}-Secretase Supercomplex Mol. Biol. Cell, October 1, 2008; 19(10): 4042 - 4050. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Finamore, M. Massimi, L. Conti Devirgiliis, and E. Mengheri Zinc Deficiency Induces Membrane Barrier Damage and Increases Neutrophil Transmigration in Caco-2 Cells J. Nutr., September 1, 2008; 138(9): 1664 - 1670. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Dejana, F. Orsenigo, and M. G. Lampugnani The role of adherens junctions and VE-cadherin in the control of vascular permeability J. Cell Sci., July 1, 2008; 121(13): 2115 - 2122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. D. Mruk, B. Silvestrini, and C. Y. Cheng Anchoring Junctions As Drug Targets: Role in Contraceptive Development Pharmacol. Rev., June 1, 2008; 60(2): 146 - 180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. M. Kreizenbeck, A. J. Berger, A. Subtil, D. L. Rimm, and B. E. Gould Rothberg Prognostic Significance of Cadherin-Based Adhesion Molecules in Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2008; 17(4): 949 - 958. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Pittet, K. Lee, A. J. Kulik, J.-J. Meister, and B. Hinz Fibrogenic fibroblasts increase intercellular adhesion strength by reinforcing individual OB-cadherin bonds J. Cell Sci., March 15, 2008; 121(6): 877 - 886. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Heyraud, M. Jaquinod, C. Durmort, E. Dambroise, E. Concord, J. P. Schaal, P. Huber, and D. Gulino-Debrac Contribution of Annexin 2 to the Architecture of Mature Endothelial Adherens Junctions Mol. Cell. Biol., March 1, 2008; 28(5): 1657 - 1668. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Stevens Epithelium: sticking it out, together Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol, March 1, 2008; 294(3): L440 - L441. [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Abe and M. Takeichi Inaugural Article: EPLIN mediates linkage of the cadherin catenin complex to F-actin and stabilizes the circumferential actin belt PNAS, January 8, 2008; 105(1): 13 - 19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. Conti and R. S. Adelstein Nonmuscle myosin II moves in new directions J. Cell Sci., January 1, 2008; 121(1): 11 - 18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Veksler and N. S. Gov Phase Transitions of the Coupled Membrane-Cytoskeleton Modify Cellular Shape Biophys. J., December 1, 2007; 93(11): 3798 - 3810. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. E. Zemljic-Harpf, J. C. Miller, S. A. Henderson, A. T. Wright, A. M. Manso, L. Elsherif, N. D. Dalton, A. K. Thor, G. A. Perkins, A. D. McCulloch, et al. Cardiac-Myocyte-Specific Excision of the Vinculin Gene Disrupts Cellular Junctions, Causing Sudden Death or Dilated Cardiomyopathy Mol. Cell. Biol., November 1, 2007; 27(21): 7522 - 7537. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Carramusa, C. Ballestrem, Y. Zilberman, and A. D. Bershadsky Mammalian diaphanous-related formin Dia1 controls the organization of E-cadherin-mediated cell-cell junctions J. Cell Sci., November 1, 2007; 120(21): 3870 - 3882. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

</

				K. L. Weber, R. S. Fischer, and V. M. Fowler Tmod3 regulates polarized epithelial cell morphology J. Cell Sci., October 15, 2007; 120(20): 3625 - 3632. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]