Probability of Autocrine Ligand Capture by Cell-Surface Receptors: Implications for Ligand Secretion Measurements

Autocrine ligands regulate important cell behavioral functions in both physiological and pathological conditions. Binding of these ligands to cell-surface receptors involves more subtle considerations than that of exogenous (endocrine or paracrine) ligands. Autocrine secretion leads to a release of molecules in the local microenvironment proximal to the cell surface, thus allowing interaction with receptors to compete directly with diffusive loss to the bulk extracellular medium. Complications in autocrine systems due to this binding vs. transport competition arise in at least three aspects: (i) experimental measurement of autocrine ligand secretion rates is compromised; (ii) kinetics of autocrine ligand binding to cell-surface receptors are difficult to follow; and (iii) inhibition by exogenous blockers of autocrine ligand binding to cell receptors is problematic. At the heart of all these complications is the need to determine the fractional distribution of the secreted autocrine ligand between cell-surface receptor capture and diffusive loss to the bulk media. In this paper we offer a theoretical treatment of this problem using Brownian dynamics simulation techniques to calculate the capture probability of the cell receptors for the autocrine ligand. A major result is that the capture probability is significantly lower than the predicted by the Berg-Purcell steady-state diffusion approach. Another is that the capture probability is essentially independent of release location. Implications of these results for the complications found in autocrine systems are discussed.

[1]  D A Lauffenburger,et al.  Interrupting autocrine ligand-receptor binding: comparison between receptor blockers and ligand decoys. , 1992, Biophysical journal.

[2]  D A Lauffenburger,et al.  Autocrine ligand binding to cell receptors. Mathematical analysis of competition by solution "decoys". , 1992, Biophysical journal.

[3]  A. Munck,et al.  T cell growth factor receptors. Quantitation, specificity, and biological relevance , 1981, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[4]  C. DeLisi,et al.  The biophysics of ligand–receptor interactions , 1980, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics.

[5]  J. Andrew McCammon,et al.  Optimization of Brownian dynamics methods for diffusion‐influenced rate constant calculations , 1986 .

[6]  R. G. Cox,et al.  Slow viscous motion of a sphere parallel to a plane wall—I Motion through a quiescent fluid , 1967 .

[7]  S Kerby,et al.  Infection with a TGF-alpha retroviral vector transforms normal mouse mammary epithelial cells but not normal rat fibroblasts. , 1989, Oncogene.

[8]  J Meier,et al.  A mechanistic analysis of the inoculum requirement for the cultivation of mammalian cells on microcarriers , 1985, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[9]  Haruo Yamabe Slow Viscous Motion Induced by Rotation of a Finite Disk , 1991 .

[10]  M. Crumpton,et al.  Autocrine regulation of T-lymphocyte proliferation: differential induction of IL-2 and IL-2 receptor. , 1988, Immunology.

[11]  John D. Minna,et al.  Bombesin-like peptides can function as autocrine growth factors in human small-cell lung cancer , 1985, Nature.

[12]  H. Berg,et al.  Physics of chemoreception. , 1977, Biophysical journal.

[13]  H. Brenner The slow motion of a sphere through a viscous fluid towards a plane surface , 1961 .

[14]  J. Mccammon,et al.  Brownian dynamics simulation of diffusion‐influenced bimolecular reactions , 1984 .

[15]  G Dus,et al.  Slow Motion. , 1959, Science.

[16]  Scott H. Northrup,et al.  Diffusion-controlled ligand binding to multiple competing cell-bound receptors , 1988 .

[17]  M. Sporn,et al.  Autocrine Secretion—10 Years Later , 1992, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[18]  J. Renversez,et al.  Valid estimation of IL2 secretion by PHA-stimulated T-cell clones absolutely requires the use of anti-CD25 monoclonal antibody to prevent IL2 consumption. , 1992, Immunology letters.

[19]  D. Ermak,et al.  Brownian dynamics with hydrodynamic interactions , 1978 .

[20]  D. Lauffenburger,et al.  Regulation of mammalian cell growth by autocrine growth factors: Analysis of consequences for inoculum cell density effects , 1989, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[21]  K. Yamaguchi,et al.  Inhibition of growth of human lung adenocarcinoma cell lines by anti-transforming growth factor-alpha monoclonal antibody. , 1989, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[22]  J. Andrew McCammon,et al.  Diffusional dynamics of ligand-receptor association , 1986 .

[23]  M. Sporn,et al.  Autocrine secretion and malignant transformation of cells. , 1980, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  J. E. Shannon,et al.  The influence of inoculum size on proliferation in tissue cultures. , 1951, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[25]  Kendall A. Smith,et al.  Interleukin-2: inception, impact, and implications. , 1988, Science.

[26]  George Marsaglia,et al.  Toward a universal random number generator , 1987 .