Secretome of endothelial progenitor cells from stroke patients promotes endothelial barrier tightness and protects against hypoxia-induced vascular leakage

Background Cell-based therapeutic strategies have been proposed as an alternative for brain repair after stroke, but their clinical application has been hampered by potential adverse effects in the long term. The present study was designed to test the effect of the secretome of endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) from stroke patients (scCM) on in vitro human models of angiogenesis and vascular barrier. Methods Two different scCM batches were analysed by mass spectrometry and a proteome profiler. Human primary CD34+-derived endothelial cells (CD34+-ECs) were used for designing angiogenesis studies (proliferation, migration, and tubulogenesis) or in vitro models of EC monolayer (confluent monolayer ECs—CMECs) and blood–brain barrier (BBB; brain-like ECs—BLECs). Cells were treated with scCM (5 μg/mL) or protein-free endothelial basal medium (scEBM—control). CMECs or BLECs were exposed (6 h) to oxygen–glucose deprivation (OGD) conditions (1% oxygen and glucose-free medium) or normoxia (control—5% oxygen, 1 g/L of glucose) and treated with scCM or scEBM during reoxygenation (24 h). Results The analysis of different scCM batches showed a good reproducibility in terms of protein yield and composition. scCM increased CD34+-EC proliferation, tubulogenesis, and migration compared to the control (scEBM). The proteomic analysis of scCM revealed the presence of growth factors and molecules modulating cell metabolism and inflammatory pathways. Further, scCM decreased the permeability of CMECs and upregulated the expression of the junctional proteins such as occludin, VE-cadherin, and ZO-1. Such effects were possibly mediated through the activation of the interferon pathway and a moderate downregulation of Wnt signalling. Furthermore, OGD increased the permeability of both CMECs and BLECs, while scCM prevented the OGD-induced vascular leakage in both models. These effects were possibly mediated through the upregulation of junctional proteins and the regulation of MAPK/VEGFR2 activity. Conclusion Our results suggest that scCM promotes angiogenesis and the maturation of newly formed vessels while restoring the BBB function in ischemic conditions. In conclusion, our results highlight the possibility of using EPC-secretome as a therapeutic alternative to promote brain angiogenesis and protect from ischemia-induced vascular leakage.

Proximity proteomics identifies PAK4 as a component of Afadin–Nectin junctions

Human PAK4 is an ubiquitously expressed p21-activated kinase which acts downstream of Cdc42. Since PAK4 is enriched in cell-cell junctions, we probed the local protein environment around the kinase with a view to understanding its location and substrates. We report that U2OS cells expressing PAK4-BirA-GFP identify a subset of 27 PAK4-proximal proteins that are primarily cell-cell junction components. Afadin/AF6 showed the highest relative biotin labelling and links to the nectin family of homophilic junctional proteins. Reciprocally >50% of the PAK4-proximal proteins were identified by Afadin BioID. Co-precipitation experiments failed to identify junctional proteins, emphasizing the advantage of the BioID method. Mechanistically PAK4 depended on Afadin for its junctional localization, which is similar to the situation in Drosophila. A highly ranked PAK4-proximal protein LZTS2 was immuno-localized with Afadin at cell-cell junctions. Though PAK4 and Cdc42 are junctional, BioID analysis did not yield conventional cadherins, indicating their spatial segregation. To identify cellular PAK4 substrates we then assessed rapid changes (12’) in phospho-proteome after treatment with two PAK inhibitors. Among the PAK4-proximal junctional proteins seventeen PAK4 sites were identified. We anticipate mammalian group II PAKs are selective for the Afadin/nectin sub-compartment, with a demonstrably distinct localization from tight and cadherin junctions.

Apical PAR complex proteins protect against programmed epithelial assaults to create a continuous and functional intestinal lumen

Sustained polarity and adhesion of epithelial cells is essential for the protection of our organs and bodies, and this epithelial integrity emerges during organ development amidst numerous programmed morphogenetic assaults. Using the developing C. elegans intestine as an in vivo model, we investigated how epithelia maintain their integrity through cell division and elongation to build a functional tube. Live-imaging revealed that apical PAR complex proteins PAR-6/Par6 and PKC-3/aPkc remained apical during mitosis while apical microtubules and microtubule-organizing center (MTOC) proteins were transiently removed. Intestine-specific depletion of PAR-6, PKC-3, and the aPkc regulator CDC-42/Cdc42 caused persistent gaps in the apical MTOC as well as in other apical and junctional proteins after cell division and in non-dividing cells that elongated. Upon hatching, gaps coincided with luminal constrictions that blocked food, and larvae arrested and died. Thus, the apical PAR complex maintains apical and junctional continuity to construct a functional intestinal tube.

SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Induces Degradation of Junctional Proteins That Maintain Endothelial Barrier Integrity

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) uses the Angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor present on the cell surface to enter cells. Angiotensin converting enzyme 2 is present in many cell types including endothelial cells, where it functions to protect against oxidative damage. There is growing evidence to suggest that coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients exhibit a wide range of post-recovery symptoms and shows signs related to cardiovascular and specifically, endothelial damage. We hypothesized that these vascular symptoms might be associated with disrupted endothelial barrier integrity. This was investigated in vitro using endothelial cell culture and recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 Receptor-Binding Domain (Spike). Mouse brain microvascular endothelial cells from normal (C57BL/6 mice) and diabetic (db/db) mice were used. An endothelial transwell permeability assay revealed increased permeability in diabetic cells as well as after Spike treatment. The expression of VE-Cadherin, an endothelial adherens junction protein, JAM-A, a tight junctional protein, Connexin-43, a gap junctional protein, and PECAM-1, were all decreased significantly after Spike treatment in control and to a greater extent, in diabetic cells. In control cells, Spike treatment increased association of endothelial junctional proteins with Rab5a, a mediator of the endocytic trafficking compartment. In cerebral arteries isolated from control and diabetic animals, Spike protein had a greater effect in downregulating expression of endothelial junctional proteins in arteries from diabetic animals than from control animals. In conclusion, these experiments reveal that Spike-induced degradation of endothelial junctional proteins affects endothelial barrier function and is the likely cause of vascular damage observed in COVID-19 affected individuals.

Neuronal junctophilins recruit specific CaV and RyR isoforms to ER-PM junctions and functionally alter CaV2.1 and CaV2.2

Junctions between the endoplasmic reticulum and plasma membrane that are induced by the neuronal junctophilins are of demonstrated importance, but their molecular architecture is still poorly understood and challenging to address in neurons. This is due to the small size of the junctions and the multiple isoforms of candidate junctional proteins in different brain areas. Using colocalization of tagged proteins expressed in tsA201 cells, and electrophysiology, we compared the interactions of JPH3 and JPH4 with different calcium channels. We found that JPH3 and JPH4 caused junctional accumulation of all the tested high-voltage-activated CaV isoforms, but not a low-voltage-activated CaV. Also, JPH3 and JPH4 noticeably modify CaV2.1 and CaV2.2 inactivation rate. RyR3 moderately colocalized at junctions with JPH4, whereas RyR1 and RyR2 did not. By contrast, RyR1 and RyR3 strongly colocalized with JPH3, and RyR2 moderately. Likely contributing to this difference, JPH3 binds to cytoplasmic domain constructs of RyR1 and RyR3, but not of RyR2.