| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Published online before print April 21, 2005
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* Département de pathologie et biologie cellulaire, Université de Montréal, Quebec, Canada; and
Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
1Correspondence: Departement de pathologie et biologie cellulaire, Universite de Montreal, C.P. 6128, Succ. centre ville, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 3J7. E-mail: michel.desjardins{at}umontreal.ca
Key Words: endoplasmic reticulum • antigen presentation
Dear Editor,
In a manuscript by Touret et al. [1 ], published in the present issue, the authors oppose a so-called "conventional model" of phagocytosis involving the plasma membrane (PM) and early endosomes to an "endoplasmic reticulum (ER)-mediated" model, where the ER is the sole source of initial membrane for the formation of phagosomes. We argue that none of these models integrate accurately the sum of knowledge acquired in the last few years on membrane trafficking events during phagocytosis. Moreover, the ER-mediated model shown certainly does not represent our current view. It would have been more appropriate to present as a conventional model the original concept derived from Elie Metchnikoff’s observations, where the PM is the sole source of membrane, and the alternative view is that other organelles, including various endocytic organelles and ER, also contribute membrane, as proposed recently [2 ]. Indeed, the seminal work of Metchnikoff at the end of the 19th century led to the proposal that phagosomes were formed by the invagination of the PM. For over a century, this prevailing view was unchallenged. However, it appeared to many scientists that the use of the cell surface might waste an important membrane to form a compartment destined for degradation and that in some conditions, the membrane needed to form phagosomes was exceeding the actual cell surface, implying that membranes from endovacuolar organelles might participate directly in the formation of phagosomes. It is only in the last few years that evidence for the contribution of several organelles in the formation of phagosomes at the cell surface, including recycling and late endosomes, was provided in the Touret et al. [1 ] paper.
More recently, we and others [3 , 4 ] presented a significant body of evidence indicating that ER is also directly involved in the formation of nascent phagosomes. Although the functional advantage of using recycling or early endosome membranes for the formation of phagosomes is still unclear, the contribution of ER led to the proposal that ER-mediated phagocytosis must confer functional properties, enabling phagosomes to play a direct role in the processing and presentation of exogenous peptides on major histocompatibility complex class I molecules, a process referred to as cross-presentation [2 ]. Following this proposal, three independent studies published simultaneously confirmed that phagosomes, in macrophages and dendritic cells, were competent organelles for cross-presentation [5 6 7 ]. In the Touret et al. [1 ] manuscript, the authors challenge the idea that ER contributes to the formation of phagosomes and their competence in cross-presentation. Although five major studies have contributed, so far, to the concept of ER-mediated phagocytosis and its significance in cross-presentation, Touret and collaborators [1 ] chose to criticize mainly the articles of Gagnon et al. [3 ] and Houde et al. [7 ]. They base their arguments on claims of their inability to reproduce some of our results, although no detail is provided about the methods used to generate their data and series of unpublished observations or data not shown. In this context, it is quite difficult to try and understand what could be the reason for these apparent discrepancies. As they cited some of our work incorrectly, it is important to put back our results in their correct context to allow a fair discussion of the significance of ER-mediated phagocytosis.
The proposal that ER participates in phagocytosis and constitutes part of the phagosome membrane is supported by various experimental approaches based around biochemical analysis, morphological observations, and functional assays. Nevertheless, Touret and collaborators [1 ] went on to suggest that ER is unlikely to constitute even a small part of the phagosome membrane and propose an explanation as to how a series of artifacts generated by these various approaches might have misled us to conclude that ER was a genuine constituent of phagosomes. According to them, all the biochemical data, including proteomics and Western blot analyses, showing the presence of ER proteins on phagosomes, are questionable as a result of a contamination of the phagosome preparations by ER vesicles. It is possible that some ER elements can be copurified during the flotation procedure used to isolate latex bead-containing phagosomes. However, various observations suggest that the ER molecules detected on the phagosome are directly associated to that compartment. When phagosomes are isolated at different time-points after their formation (to study phagosome maturation), ER proteins are not observed at all time-points. Indeed, Western blot analyses indicated that ER proteins are present on phagosomes early after phagocytosis, and they disappear and reappear in cycles throughout phagolysosome biogenesis (see Fig. 2C in ref. [3 ]). Thus, this brings the unlikely concept that if ER is contaminating the phagosome preparations, it does so at some time-points only. Further evidence, incompatible with a simple contamination of phagosomes by ER, is the observation that the distribution of calnexin in maturing phagosomes follows a pattern compatible with the proteolytic degradation of its intralumenal domain with time, a process that could occur in phagosomes but not in ER (see Fig. 2B in ref. [3 ]).
Observation at the electron microscope (EM) indicates that the flotation procedure used to isolate latex bead-containing phagosomes generates highly enriched preparations (compare with a total cell lysate), in which pieces of membrane or vesicles of unidentified origin are also present (see arrows in Fig. 1A ). The nature of these structures is unknown. However, when phagosome isolation is done with cells that preinternalized horseradish peroxidase (HRP) by endocytosis (HRP is present in endosomes and phagosomes in this case), several of the apparent contaminating vesicles contain HRP [8 ]. This indicates that a significant part of the vesicles or membranes isolated with phagosomes includes endosomes or vesicles originating from broken phagosomes. When isolated phagosomes are incubated to reveal the ER molecule calnexin by a pre-embedding method using high-resolution electron microscopy, a high labeling for calnexin is observed directly on the phagosome membrane, and the contaminating membranes are not labeled [3 ]. Similar results were obtained for the transporter associated with antigen presentation, another ER molecule [6 ]. In both studies, nothing suggested the presence of an additional layer of membrane coming from collapsed vesicles, as argued by Touret and collaborators [1 ]. To show that contaminating membranes could be labeled if they were of ER origin, we deliberately added ER vesicles to our phagosome preparations and showed that in these conditions, calnexin is observed on phagosomes and the added vesicles (Fig. 1B) . It is such an image from our work that is presented in Figure 2B of the Touret et al. [1 ] paper, without mentioning that the labeled vesicles, which could be mistaken for a contaminant, were added to the preparation as a positive control. Also note that contrary to what their legend indicates, there is no labeling for LAMP-1 in the panel taken from our published data. Moreover, there is no indication that what they present as foreign membranes in their pictures in Figure 2, E and F, is of ER or even foreign origin. In fact, in their Figure 2F, the latex bead shown does not appear to be surrounded by a membrane, suggesting that the membrane bits in contact with the naked bead could be the broken phagosome membrane.
|
Membrane fusion is regulated by soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor attachment protein receptor (SNARE) molecules. Rothman and collaborators [10 ] originally uncovered the pairing of the plasmalemma SNARE Sso1/Sec9c with the ER SNARE Sec22, a result that was not further discussed, as it was unthinkable then to propose that the ER could fuse with the PM. However, this peculiar pairing, originally viewed as a grain of sand in the SNARE hypothesis, was recently shown by Rothman’s group [11 ] to be involved in the regulation of ER fusion with the PM during phagocytosis. Thus, as it is the case for endosome-PM fusion, the pairing of specific SNARE molecules controls the fusion of ER with the PM. It is interesting to mention that proteomics analyses of phagosomes at different time-points after their formation and Western blot analysis indicate that ERS-24/Sec22b is present only on early phagosomes (unpublished data).
Tourette and collaborators [1 ] also mention that they were unable to reproduce some of our data linking phagosomes to cross-presentation. For example, they claim that they did not observe OVA in the cytoplasm after phagocytosis but rather in membrane vesicles (no method is provided to see how they performed their experiments). Based on our results, we are quite sure that the apparent discrepancy between their results and ours is simply a result of the fact that the same experiments were not compared. Indeed, in control cells, we observe similar vesicular structures containing OVA and labeled with LAMP-1 (see Fig. 1C and inset). The diffusion of OVA to the cytoplasm was observed only in the presence of proteasome inhibitors, indicating that translocated OVA is likely to be degraded rapidly by the proteasome once in the cytoplasm (Fig. 1D and 1E) . Furthermore, the fact that we could detect, by mass spectrometry, the association to phagosomes of ubiquitinated OVA (a process that takes place in the cytoplasm) confirms that translocation of peptides occurred.
It is clear to us that the PM, the ER, as well as various endocytic organelles contribute a significant part of the initial phagosome membrane as proposed in a recent model [2 ]. In that context, we do not see how the presence of ER would interfere with the ability of phagosomes to acidify their lumen, as argued by Tourette and collaborators [1 ]. The maturation of early phagosomes into phagolysosomes would indeed favor the acquisition of properties displayed by late endocytic organelles, such as the ability to acidify their lumen. In fact, we were the first to show that phagosome maturation is accompanied by the sequential appearance and disappearance of the small GTPases rab5 and rab7 (originally observed on early and late endosomes) [8 ] and that this process functionally correlates with the first direct demonstration that phagosomes fuse sequentially with early and late endosomes and lysosomes [12 ]. Our results showing that ER molecules are more abundant on early phagosomes than late phagosomes are not in conflict with the maturation model of phagosomes. Obviously, more data are required to understand the complex mechanisms and the dynamic membrane trafficking events involved in phagocytosis and phagolysosome biogenesis. However, a growing body of evidence already indicates that the active involvement of ER in this process confers functional advantages to phagosomes. The extent of ER participation as well as other endovacuolar organelles remains to be determined.
Received March 8, 2005; accepted March 24, 2005.
REFERENCES
Related Article
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  V. Braun, C. Deschamps, G. Raposo, P. Benaroch, A. Benmerah, P. Chavrier, and F. Niedergang AP-1 and ARF1 Control Endosomal Dynamics at Sites of FcR mediated Phagocytosis Mol. Biol. Cell, December 1, 2007; 18(12): 4921 - 4931. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Hatsuzawa, T. Tamura, H. Hashimoto, H. Hashimoto, S. Yokoya, M. Miura, H. Nagaya, and I. Wada Involvement of Syntaxin 18, an Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER)-localized SNARE Protein, in ER-mediated Phagocytosis Mol. Biol. Cell, September 1, 2006; 17(9): 3964 - 3977. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Burlak, A. R. Whitney, D. J. Mead, T. Hackstadt, and F. R. DeLeo Maturation of Human Neutrophil Phagosomes Includes Incorporation of Molecular Chaperones and Endoplasmic Reticulum Quality Control Machinery Mol. Cell. Proteomics, April 1, 2006; 5(4): 620 - 634. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
