![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2005, European Molecular Biology Organization Deficiency of LKB1 in skeletal muscle prevents AMPK activation and glucose uptake during contraction 1MRC Protein Phosphorylation Unit, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK 2The Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK 3Division of Molecular Physiology, School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK aMRC Protein Phosphorylation Unit, School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dow Street, Dundee DD1 5EH, UK. Tel.: +44 1382 34 4241; Fax: +44 1382 223 778; E-mail: k.sakamoto/at/dundee.ac.uk Received December 22, 2004; Accepted March 31, 2005. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Recent studies indicate that the LKB1 tumour suppressor protein kinase is the major ‘upstream' activator of the energy sensor AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK). We have used mice in which LKB1 is expressed at only ~10% of the normal levels in muscle and most other tissues, or that lack LKB1 entirely in skeletal muscle. Muscle expressing only 10% of the normal level of LKB1 had significantly reduced phosphorylation and activation of AMPKα2. In LKB1-lacking muscle, the basal activity of the AMPKα2 isoform was greatly reduced and was not increased by the AMP-mimetic agent, 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide riboside (AICAR), by the antidiabetic drug phenformin, or by muscle contraction. Moreover, phosphorylation of acetyl CoA carboxylase-2, a downstream target of AMPK, was profoundly reduced. Glucose uptake stimulated by AICAR or muscle contraction, but not by insulin, was inhibited in the absence of LKB1. Contraction increased the AMP:ATP ratio to a greater extent in LKB1-deficient muscles than in LKB1-expressing muscles. These studies establish the importance of LKB1 in regulating AMPK activity and cellular energy levels in response to contraction and phenformin. Keywords: AMP-activated protein kinase, glucose transport, LKB1, phenformin, skeletal muscle Introduction The AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) is a major sensor of cellular energy levels and is activated by increased levels of 5′-AMP resulting from reduced energy availability (reviewed in Carling, 2004; Hardie, 2004). AMPK is a heterotrimeric complex formed from a catalytic α subunit and two regulatory subunits termed AMPKβ and AMPKγ. AMP activates the AMPK complex by binding to two sites formed by the CBS motifs located on the γ subunit (Scott et al, 2004). Once activated, AMPK phosphorylates substrates that inhibit anabolic processes and promote catabolic processes to restore cellular energy levels. One of the most studied physiological events that activates AMPK is exercise/contraction in skeletal muscle, where AMPK has been proposed to play a key role in stimulation of glucose uptake. Thus, treatment of muscle with an AMPK activator, 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide riboside (AICAR), which is converted to an AMP mimetic within the cell, stimulated glucose uptake (Merrill et al, 1997; Hayashi et al, 1998). Moreover, overexpression of a constitutively active AMPK mutant in muscle cell lines increased glucose uptake (Fryer et al, 2002), while overexpression of a dominant-negative mutant of AMPK in mouse skeletal muscle blocked AICAR-induced glucose uptake (Mu et al, 2001). However, glucose uptake induced by contraction was only inhibited partially in mouse muscle expressing dominant-negative AMPK (Mu et al, 2001), suggesting that AMPK-independent pathway(s) may regulate glucose transport in contracting muscle. AMPK is also activated by metformin, the most widely utilised drug for reducing blood glucose levels in Type II diabetics (Zhou et al, 2001). The mechanism by which metformin, or its closely related analogue phenformin, activates AMPK has not yet been fully established, but may involve inhibition of ATP production via effects on complex I of the mitochondrial respiratory chain. Activation of AMPK by AICAR, metformin and contraction requires phosphorylation of a threonine residue in the T-loop of the AMPKα subunit kinase domain (corresponding to Thr172 in both the AMPKα1 and AMPKα2 isoforms), by upstream kinase(s) (Carling, 2004; Hardie, 2004). Work performed initially in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Hong et al, 2003; Nath et al, 2003; Sutherland et al, 2003), and subsequently in mammalian cells (Hawley et al, 2003; Woods et al, 2003a; Shaw et al, 2004), demonstrated that the LKB1 protein kinase can mediate Thr172 phosphorylation of AMPK both in vitro and in intact cells. LKB1 is a 50 kDa serine/threonine kinase that was originally identified as the product of the gene mutated in the autosomal dominantly-inherited Peutz–Jeghers cancer syndrome (Hemminki et al, 1998; Jenne et al, 1998). Like AMPK, LKB1 forms a heterotrimeric complex, in this case with regulatory proteins termed STRAD and MO25, which are required for its activation and cytosolic localisation (Baas et al, 2003; Boudeau et al, 2003, 2004). The LKB1 complex is not itself stimulated by AMP, and is constitutively active in cell lines (Woods et al, 2003a; Lizcano et al, 2004), as well as in skeletal muscle (Sakamoto et al, 2004). In vitro studies have suggested that binding of AMP to AMPK is likely to be the principle regulatory mechanism stimulating phosphorylation of AMPK by LKB1 (Hawley et al, 2003). The LKB1 complex also phosphorylates and activates a number of other protein kinases related to AMPK, whose functions are poorly understood (Lizcano et al, 2004; Jaleel et al, 2005). However, unlike AMPK, the other AMPK-related kinases phosphorylated by LKB1 are not activated by AICAR, phenformin or muscle contraction (Lizcano et al, 2004; Sakamoto et al, 2004). Recent studies have suggested that activation of AMPK might be mediated independently of LKB1 in IGF1-stimulated fibroblasts and HeLa cells (Suzuki et al, 2004) or in cardiac muscle in response to ischaemia (Altarejos et al, 2005; Baron et al, 2005). Furthermore, in LKB1-deficient HeLa cells or mouse embryo fibroblasts, although AMPK is not activated by AICAR or other stimuli tested, it did possess significant basal activity and phosphorylation at Thr172 (Hawley et al, 2003; Shaw et al, 2004). This suggested that AMPK could be phosphorylated at Thr172 in vivo independently of LKB1. In this study, we wished to address the role that LKB1 plays in activating AMPK in a mammalian tissue in vivo, rather than in cultured cells in vitro. We have generated mice either lacking LKB1 in muscle, or in which the expression of LKB1 is reduced 10-fold, to define the role that LKB1 plays in regulating AMPK activity and glucose uptake in contracting skeletal muscle. Results Strategy employed to generate muscle-specific LKB1 knockout mice We have generated mice conditional for expression of LKB1 and the structure of the floxed (fl) allele is shown in Figure 1A
Hypomorphic phenotype of LKB1fl/fl mice LKB1fl/fl mice were bred as described in Cross 1 in Figure 1B
LKB1 expression is abolished in the muscle of LKB1fl/flCre+/− mice We next analysed LKB1 in tissues of the LKB1fl/fl mice expressing the Cre recombinase, generated as described in Cross 2 in Figure 1B LKB1 is required for AICAR-induced AMPKα2 activation To determine whether lack of LKB1 in skeletal muscle affected AMPK activation, we treated isolated extensor digitorum longus (EDL) muscle isolated from 7–10-week-old mice, in the presence or absence of 2 mM AICAR, which is converted by adenosine kinase into AICAR monophosphate (ZMP), a cellular mimetic of AMP which activates AMPK (Corton et al, 1995). We first measured the activity of the AMPKα2 isoform as well as its phosphorylation at Thr172, the site of LKB1 phosphorylation. In LKB1+/+ and LKB1+/fl EDL muscles, AICAR stimulated AMPKα2 activity ~2-fold (Figure 3A
Further evidence that LKB1 regulated AMPKα2 activity came from the finding that, in the LKB1fl/fl hypomorphic mice, which express 10-fold lower levels of LKB1 in muscle (Figure 2A We next examined AMPKα1 activity in the EDL muscle of wild-type LKB1+/+ mice and found that its activity was markedly lower than that of AMPKα2 (compare Figure 3A and C LKB1 is required for AICAR-induced glucose transport in skeletal muscle A major physiological role of AMPK in muscle is to stimulate glucose transport (Winder and Hardie, 1999). We therefore measured 2-deoxyglucose uptake in isolated EDL muscle incubated for 60 min in the presence or absence of 2 mM AICAR, followed by 10 min in 3H-2-deoxyglucose. These studies revealed that the basal levels of glucose uptake were similar in LKB1+/+ or hypomorphic LKB1fl/flCre−/− muscle, and that glucose uptake was stimulated two- to three-fold by AICAR (Figure 3D LKB1 is required for contraction-induced AMPKα2 activation One of the major physiological activators of AMPK in skeletal muscle is contraction or exercise (Winder and Hardie, 1999). In order to investigate the role of LKB1 in enabling AMPK to be activated by muscle contraction, in situ contractions of hind limb muscle were induced in one leg via electrical stimulation of the sciatic nerve in anaesthetised mice, while the other leg served as the noncontracted control. Contraction was performed for 5 min, a time point that maximally activates AMPKα2 using the protocol employed (Sakamoto et al, 2004). We measured AMPKα2 activity (Figure 4A
In the hypomorphic LKB1fl/flCre−/− muscle, the basal AMPKα2 activity was 6 mU/mg (compared to 25 mU/mg in LKB1+/+ muscle) and was stimulated during contraction to 55 mU/mg (compared to 115 mU/mg in LKB1+/+ muscle). In the LKB1 hypomorphic mice, contraction-induced phosphorylation of AMPK at Thr172 was reduced significantly, but, in contrast to AICAR treatment (Figure 3B In contrast to AMPKα2, AMPKα1 activity was not increased significantly by muscle contraction (Figure 4C LKB1 is required for contraction-induced glucose transport in skeletal muscle Muscle contraction stimulates glucose uptake, but the contribution that AMPK makes to this process relative to other signalling pathways has been controversial (Aschenbach et al, 2004). We therefore measured glucose uptake in EDL muscle using in situ (Figure 5A
LKB1 is required for phenformin-induced AMPKα2 activation To study whether LKB1 was required for the activation of AMPKα2 by the antidiabetic drug phenformin, we treated isolated EDL muscle in the presence or absence of 2 mM phenformin for 60 min. Phenformin was employed rather than metformin, as this close relative of metformin activates AMPK much more potently in muscle than metformin (KS, unpublished results). Phenformin induced a three-fold stimulation of AMPKα2 in LKB1-expressing muscle (Figure 6A
Role of LKB1 in controlling cellular energy charge Activation of AMPK during muscle contraction is thought to regulate cellular energy balance (Hardie et al, 2003). We therefore measured ADP:ATP and AMP:ATP ratios in control and contracted muscles (tibialis anterior and EDL) by quantitative capillary electrophoresis (Figure 7
Discussion Our results establish that LKB1 is a major regulator of AMPKα2 activity in skeletal muscle, and that lack of LKB1 is not compensated for by other kinases. Our results also support the notion that activation of AMPK plays a major role in maintaining cellular energy levels. This is based on the finding that, in LKB1-deficient muscles in which AMPK is not activated, muscle contraction resulted in an abnormal elevation of the ADP:ATP, AMP:ATP and IMP:ATP ratios (Figure 7 In contrast to the results with AMPKα2, we observed that AICAR (Figure 3 Our finding that male LKB1fl/fl mice are infertile suggests a role for LKB1 in regulating spermatogenesis and/or sperm motility. In testis, a faster migrating 48 kDa species of LKB1 is detected by antibodies raised against an N-terminal peptide of LKB1, which is absent in the LKB1fl/fl mice (Figure 2F Our data demonstrate that a 10-fold reduction in LKB1 expression in the muscle of LKB1fl/fl mice reduced basal AMPKα2 activity as well as its activation by AICAR and contraction, although by much less than 10-fold. This suggests that, in muscle tissues, the normal level of LKB1 is not rate-limiting and exerts only a small degree of control over the activation of AMPKα2. This may be a common feature of protein kinase signalling networks, as we have previously shown that, in hypomorphic mice that express only 10% of the normal level of PDK1, two of its downstream targets, that is, protein kinase B and ribosomal protein S6 kinase, are activated normally (Lawlor et al, 2002). Our results also illustrate the sensitivity and spare capacity that exists in the LKB1–AMPK signalling pathway. For example, AMPKα2 activation induced by contraction was reduced ~2-fold in the hypomorphic LKB1fl/fl mice, but this had no significant effect on the downstream actions of AMPK that we have investigated, namely phosphorylation of ACC (Figure 4B In LKB1-deficient muscle, we found that phosphorylation of ACC, although greatly reduced, was not abolished. The residual phosphorylation of ACC that is observed could be mediated by trace residual activation of AMPKα2 in the LKB1-deficient muscle, or by a kinase other than AMPK that is also stimulated by contraction. We also noticed that, in the hypomorphic mice, AICAR-induced, but not contraction-induced, phosphorylation of ACC was inhibited. This may provide further evidence that exercise can stimulate ACC phosphorylation independently of AMPK, and moreover it is also possible that exercise might promote ACC phosphorylation through the inhibition of a protein phosphatase. Interestingly, in LKB1-deficent fibroblasts, AICAR- and hydrogen-peroxide-induced phosphorylation of ACC was reduced, but not abolished (Shaw et al, 2004). Our findings suggest that AMPK is the major kinase phosphorylating the regulatory site (Ser212) on muscle ACC, but indicate that there may be other kinases that phosphorylate this site in vivo. A complication that arises when generating muscle-specific knockouts using the Cre/loxP system is that it is sometimes difficult to obtain a complete ablation of gene expression throughout a muscle fibre, resulting from muscles being formed from fused myoblasts. Thus, if the Cre recombinase fails to delete the loxP-targeted gene in a small percentage of nuclei within a muscle fibre, this would result (in contrast to other tissues) in the targeted gene being expressed at low levels throughout the fibre. We have previously attempted to ablate PDK1 expression in skeletal muscle using the Cre/loxP system and found that, despite a 95% reduction in PDK1 expression in muscle tissues, the remaining PDK1 that is expressed throughout the muscle fibre is sufficient to normally activate its downstream substrates (Mora et al, 2003). In this study, we may have overcome the inherent problem of creating conditional knockouts in mouse muscle, by ablating LKB1 expression in a hypomorphic background. Had the LKB1fl/fl mice not been hypomorphic for LKB1 expression, it is possible that a 95% reduction in LKB1 expression in the muscle of these animals would have only partially reduced AMPKα2 activation and would not have affected contraction-induced ACC phosphorylation or glucose uptake. A key finding of this study is that contraction-induced glucose uptake is largely inhibited in LKB1-deficient EDL muscle (Figure 5 Our results do not exclude the possibility that LKB1 may be able to stimulate contraction-induced glucose uptake through an AMPK-independent mechanism. The most likely candidates for downstream targets of LKB1 that might mediate this effect would be the AMPK-related kinases that are also phosphorylated and activated by LKB1 (Lizcano et al, 2004). Although we were previously unable to demonstrate that any of these enzymes that were detectable in skeletal muscle (QSK, QIK, MARK2, MARK3 and MARK4) were stimulated by muscle contraction, AICAR or phenformin (Sakamoto et al, 2004), we cannot rule out the possibility that these enzymes might play a permissive role in enabling contraction to induce glucose uptake. In conclusion, we provide here the first genetic evidence of the crucial role that LKB1 plays in regulating AMPK activation in muscle. Our data suggest that contraction/exercise-induced activation of AMPK and glucose uptake requires LKB1. We also demonstrate for the first time that contraction in muscles lacking AMPK activity results in abnormal increases in cellular AMP:ATP ratio, supporting the notion that LKB1 network functions as a sensor and regulator of cellular energy charge that protects muscle cells against the metabolic stress of contraction. Materials and methods Materials and details of antibodies and procedures used to prepare tissue lysates, perform immunoblotting, assay of LKB1/AMPK as well as glucose transport, contraction force, nucleotide measurements and statistics employed are described in Supplementary data. Mice breeding and genotype analysis All animal studies and breeding were approved by the University of Dundee ethical committee and performed under a UK Home Office project license. LKB1fl/fl mice were crossed to transgenic mice expressing Cre recombinase under muscular creatine kinase promoter (Cre) (Bruning et al, 1998), which had been backcrossed for seven generations to the C57BL/6J strain. Genotyping was performed by PCR using genomic DNA isolated from tails. The presence of a wild-type or floxed LKB1 allele was detected using two primers, p200, 5′-CCAGCCTTCTGACTCTCAGG-3′ and p201, 5′-GTAGGTATTCCAGGCCGTCA-3′. For the detection of CRE, the following primers were employed: Cre1, 5′-AAATGGTTTCCCGCAGAACC-3′ and Cre10, 5′-TAGCTGGCTGGTGGCAGATG-3′. Incubation of isolated muscle with AICAR or phenformin Mice (7–10 weeks of age) were fasted overnight (16 h) prior to experiment and killed by cervical dislocation, and EDL muscles were rapidly and carefully removed. Tendons from both ends of each muscle were tied with suture (silk 4–0) and mounted on an incubation apparatus. The muscles were incubated as described previously (Sakamoto et al, 2004). Muscles were incubated in 8 ml of Krebs-Ringer bicarbonate (KRB) buffer (117 mM NaCl, 2.5 mM CaCl2, 1.2 mM KH2PO4, 1.2 mM MgSO4, 24.6 mM NaHCO3, pH 7.4) containing 2 mM pyruvate for 60 min at 37°C, in the presence or absence of 2 mM AICAR or 2 mM phenformin. At the end of the incubation period, muscles were quickly frozen in liquid nitrogen. Muscles were stored at −80°C. In situ muscle contraction Mice (7–10 weeks of age) were fasted overnight (16 h) and were anaesthetised with sodium pentobarbital (90 mg/kg of body weight, administered intraperitoneally); the sciatic nerves to both legs were surgically exposed, and electrodes were attached. One leg was subjected to electrical stimulation for 5 min (train rate, 1/s; train duration, 500 ms; pulse rate, 100 Hz; duration, 0.1 ms at 2–5 V), and the other leg served as sham-operated (noncontracted) control as described previously (Sakamoto et al, 2002). Immediately after nerve stimulation, mice were killed by cervical dislocation, and tibialis anterior and EDL muscles were rapidly removed and then frozen in liquid nitrogen. Muscle tissues were stored at −80°C. In vitro muscle contraction Mice (7–10 weeks of age) were fasted overnight (16 h) prior to experiment and killed by cervical dislocation, EDL muscles were rapidly removed. Tendons from both ends of each muscle were tied with suture and mounted on an incubation apparatus with resting length. The muscles were incubated in 8 ml of KRB buffer containing 2 mM pyruvate for 50 min at 37°C. When contracted, muscles were electrically stimulated during the last 10 min of this period (train rate, 2/min; train duration, 10 s; pulse rate, 100 Hz; duration, 0.1 ms at 100 V). Supplementary Data Click here to view.(233K, pdf) Acknowledgments We thank Ronald Kahn (Joslin Diabetes Center) for providing the Cre expressing mice, Gail Fraser, Victoria Murray-Tait and Laura Armit for technical assistance, Jose Bayascas and Kirsty Mustard for helpful advice, Greg Stewart and the protein production and antibody purification teams (Division of Signal Transduction Therapy (DSTT), University of Dundee) co-ordinated by Hilary McLauchlan and James Hastie for affinity purification of antibodies, the Sequencing Service (School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland, www.dnaseq.co.uk) for DNA sequencing. We thank the Association for International Cancer Research (DRA), Cancer Research UK and Breakthrough Breast Cancer (AA), Diabetes UK (DRA+DG), the Medical Research Council UK (DRA+DG), the Moffat Charitable Trust, the European Commission (DGH, QLG1-CT-2001-0148800 RTD contract), the Wellcome Trust (DGH), as well as the pharmaceutical companies that support the Division of Signal Transduction Therapy (AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co. Inc., Merck KGaA and Pfizer) for financial support. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||
Trends Biochem Sci. 2004 Jan; 29(1):18-24.
[Trends Biochem Sci. 2004]J Cell Sci. 2004 Nov 1; 117(Pt 23):5479-87.
[J Cell Sci. 2004]J Clin Invest. 2004 Jan; 113(2):274-84.
[J Clin Invest. 2004]Am J Physiol. 1997 Dec; 273(6 Pt 1):E1107-12.
[Am J Physiol. 1997]Diabetes. 1998 Aug; 47(8):1369-73.
[Diabetes. 1998]Trends Biochem Sci. 2004 Jan; 29(1):18-24.
[Trends Biochem Sci. 2004]J Cell Sci. 2004 Nov 1; 117(Pt 23):5479-87.
[J Cell Sci. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jul 22; 100(15):8839-43.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]Mol Cell Biol. 2003 Jun; 23(11):3909-17.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2003]Curr Biol. 2003 Aug 5; 13(15):1299-305.
[Curr Biol. 2003]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2004 Nov 19; 324(3):986-92.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2004]J Biol Chem. 2005 Jan 7; 280(1):183-90.
[J Biol Chem. 2005]Circ Res. 2005 Feb 18; 96(3):337-45.
[Circ Res. 2005]J Biol. 2003; 2(4):28.
[J Biol. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Mar 9; 101(10):3329-35.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Mol Cell. 1998 Nov; 2(5):559-69.
[Mol Cell. 1998]Eur J Biochem. 1995 Apr 15; 229(2):558-65.
[Eur J Biochem. 1995]Eur J Biochem. 1990 Jan 12; 187(1):183-90.
[Eur J Biochem. 1990]Am J Physiol. 1999 Jul; 277(1 Pt 1):E1-10.
[Am J Physiol. 1999]Am J Physiol. 1999 Jul; 277(1 Pt 1):E1-10.
[Am J Physiol. 1999]Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Aug; 287(2):E310-7.
[Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2004]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2000 Jul 14; 273(3):1150-5.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2000]J Appl Physiol. 2002 Jul; 93(1):369-83.
[J Appl Physiol. 2002]Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Aug; 287(2):E310-7.
[Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2004]Sports Med. 2004; 34(2):91-103.
[Sports Med. 2004]FEBS Lett. 2003 Jul 3; 546(1):113-20.
[FEBS Lett. 2003]J Biol. 2003; 2(4):28.
[J Biol. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Mar 9; 101(10):3329-35.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]EMBO J. 2004 Feb 25; 23(4):833-43.
[EMBO J. 2004]FEBS Lett. 2005 Feb 28; 579(6):1417-23.
[FEBS Lett. 2005]EMBO J. 2002 Jul 15; 21(14):3728-38.
[EMBO J. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Mar 9; 101(10):3329-35.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]EMBO J. 2003 Sep 15; 22(18):4666-76.
[EMBO J. 2003]J Biol Chem. 2004 Jan 9; 279(2):1070-9.
[J Biol Chem. 2004]J Clin Invest. 2003 Jan; 111(1):91-8.
[J Clin Invest. 2003]EMBO J. 2004 Feb 25; 23(4):833-43.
[EMBO J. 2004]Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Aug; 287(2):E310-7.
[Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2004]Mol Cell. 1998 Nov; 2(5):559-69.
[Mol Cell. 1998]Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Aug; 287(2):E310-7.
[Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2004]J Biol Chem. 2002 Apr 5; 277(14):11910-7.
[J Biol Chem. 2002]