Lamellipodium extension and membrane ruffling require different SNARE-mediated trafficking pathways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intracellular membrane traffic is an essential component of the membrane remodeling that supports lamellipodium extension during cell adhesion. The membrane trafficking pathways that contribute to cell adhesion have not been fully elucidated, but recent studies have implicated SNARE proteins. Here, the functions of several SNAREs (SNAP23, VAMP3, VAMP4 and syntaxin13) are characterized during the processes of cell spreading and membrane ruffling. RESULTS: We report the first description of a SNARE complex, containing SNAP23, syntaxin13 and cellubrevin/VAMP3, that is induced by cell adhesion to an extracellular matrix. Impairing the function of the SNAREs in the complex using inhibitory SNARE domains disrupted the recycling endosome, impeded delivery of integrins to the cell surface, and reduced haptotactic cell migration and spreading. Blocking SNAP23 also inhibited the formation of PMA-stimulated, F-actin-rich membrane ruffles; however, membrane ruffle formation was not significantly altered by inhibition of VAMP3 or syntaxin13. In contrast, membrane ruffling, and not cell spreading, was sensitive to inhibition of two SNAREs within the biosynthetic secretory pathway, GS15 and VAMP4. Consistent with this, formation of a complex containing VAMP4 and SNAP23 was enhanced by treatment of cells with PMA. The results reveal a requirement for the function of a SNAP23-syntaxin13-VAMP3 complex in the formation of lamellipodia during cell adhesion and of a VAMP4-SNAP23-containing complex during PMA-induced membrane ruffling. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that different SNARE-mediated trafficking pathways support membrane remodeling during ECM-induced lamellipodium extension and PMA-induced ruffle formation, pointing to important mechanistic differences between these processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".