CRP2 belongs to the CRP family of LIM domain proteins that are evolutionarily conserved. The sequence of mouse CRP2 displays 99.5%, 97.9%, and 97.4% amino acid identity to human, quail, and chicken CRP2, respectively. Therefore, it is supposed that this LIM domain protein has a critically, evolutionarily conserved role for the development or maintenance of vital processes within organisms. Consistent with this hypothesis is the observation that
Csrp2 expression is detectable in a number of cell types during embryogenesis, including mesenchyme, vascular smooth muscle cells, and epithelial derivatives [
19]. It was also demonstrated that
Csrp2 is expressed in the cardiovascular system at early time points during mouse development indicating an important role in vascular smooth muscle differentiation [
18]. Based on the knowledge that CRP2 and other CRPs can bind to zyxin, α-actinin, and α-actin [
25,
6,
26], it is tempting to speculate that these proteins are bridging molecules that are important for the organization or stabilization of cytoskeletal structures. This is also supported by structural data showing that the two tandemly arranged LIM domains are completely independent folded units that are linked by a highly flexible spacer [
11,
12].
Moreover,
Csrp2 was originally identified from normal quail embryo fibroblasts that were screened for genes suppressed in the course of oncogenic transformation [
3]. Subsequently, it was demonstrated that the transcriptional suppression of
Csrp2 is generally linked to the transformed state of cells [
27] suggesting that CRP2 might have tumor-suppressor activity. In this context it is remarkable that the reintroduction of CRP2 into human breast and colorectal cancer cell lines was sufficient to significantly decrease colony formation [
28]. However, all these findings demonstrate that indeed CRP2 must have specific functions both in development and control of cancer cell growth. Considering the postulated roles and the observed expression pattern of CRP2, the finding that mice lacking a functional
Csrp2 gene exhibit a quite mild phenotype was unexpected but is in agreement with a recent report characterizing a similar
Csrp2 gene disruption in mice [
20]. No gross morphological or physiological abnormalities were detected, suggesting that
Csrp2 is dispensable for normal development. This finding is somewhat surprising, since the ablation of the CRP3/MLP or TLP genes is associated with striking morphological and functional alterations [
7,
5]. Possibly, there exists a functional redundancy that is known from other myogenic factors [
29,
30]. This would give rise to "cryptic robustness" to cells and organs expressing different CRPs. Conversely, a loss of function mutation or an experimental inactivation of a
Csrp gene would predominantly affect cells or organs exclusively expressing this family member. There are some good arguments supporting this "quantitative model of CRP function". First, different independent studies have shown that CRP3/MLP is exclusively expressed in heart at high level and to a lower extent in skeletal muscle [
4,
18,
8,
31]. The abundance of
Csrp3/Mlp transcripts in these organs is several times higher than those of
Csrp1 and
Csrp2 (Additional file
4). Therefore, it is reasonable that the CRP quantities expressed by these genes cannot compensate for CRP3/MLP. Consistent with our hypothesis, it is not surprising that
Csrp3/Mlp nulls have a strong cardiac phenotype [
7] and
Csrp3/Mlp mutations are associated with heart failure in humans [
14,
15]. Secondly, TLP is highly expressed in the thymus and accordingly mice deficient for TLP have alterations of normal thymus function [
5]. Third, our data presented in this study indicate that the loss of CRP2 has only a mild cardiac phenotype. Compared to the
Csrp3/Mlp knock out model [
7], the cardiac alterations are much less pronounced. The localisation of CRP2 (Fig. ) and the alterations in tissue distribution of N-RAP and β-catenin found in animals lacking CRP2 (Fig. ) point to a functionality of CRP2 in the organisation of the intercalated disc. In this regard, CRP2 might cooperate with other CRPs. It is tempting to speculate that during heart development
Csrp3/Mlp or
Csrp1 may be in the position to compensate for the loss of CRP2. This principle may also be true for the development of other organs.
Csrp2 is broadly expressed in mouse embryos and adults [
18,
19,
31]. Likewise,
Csrp1 is widely expressed in mouse tissues [
18,
32] and expression coincides with that of
Csrp2 (Additional file
5). Noteworthy, the
Csrp1 and
Csrp2 genes are expressed in early vertebrate embryos and are spatially regulated in mouse [
19,
32]. In this regard, the recent finding that both, CRP1 and CRP2, are able to convert pluripotent 10T1/2 fibroblasts into smooth muscle cells [
9] demonstrates that these CRPs share some functions. Together, these observations are in agreement with the notion that individual CRPs share redundant functions and may explain the mild phenotype of the
Csrp2-/- mouse and the surprising observation that
Csrp2 thought to be involved in key biological processes could be removed without affecting the organism.
A recent report has shown that CRP2 physically associates with other cardiovascular lineage regulators, such as serum response factor (SRF) and GATA proteins, thereby synergistically activating the transcription of smooth muscle cell target genes (i.e. smooth muscle myosin heavy-chain, calponin, smooth muscle α-actin, caldesmon, SM22α) with contractile abilities [
17]. Therefore, it is possible that the lack of CRP2 cause alterations in expression of respective genes resulting in cardiomyocytes displaying a slight increase in thickness. CRP2 and its close homologue CRP1 are co-expressed during early cardiovascular development and both CRPs share similar functionality in facilitating transcriptional activity of the SRF-GATA-complex, especially of promoters encoding the SMC target genes [
9]. Therefore, it is reasonable that CRP1 in the
Csrp2 nulls can substitute for CRP2 resulting in the observed mild phenotype. Noteworthy, this functional substitution is not overall complete. In preliminary echocardiography using five animals each we found indications that the disruption of the
Csrp2 gene is associated with a lower left ventricular wall thickness and fractional shortening (Additional file
6) indicating reduced heart function in respective nulls.
However, the lack of an "obvious
Csrp2-/- phenotype" in an animal kept under laboratory conditions constitutes no compelling argument against a unique and indispensable role of a gene in the normal physiology and the specialized
in vivo function of CRP2 may become apparent only after appropriate challenges to the mice. In this context, it might be significant that apart from the shared binding affinity of CRP1, CRP2 and CRP3/MLP to zyxin and α-actinin, we and others have isolated proteins specifically interacting with individual CRPs [
33,
8,
34,
10]. The ability of CRPs to discriminate between different target proteins may the basis for subtle differences in functionality. Such an overlap of functional redundancy with protein specific activities was also demonstrated in the myogenic basic helix-loop-helix (HLH) genes [
29,
30]. Comparable to the
Csrp2-/- nulls, the inactivation of
MyoD leads to up-regulation of the myogenic HLH gene
Myf-5 and results in normal development [
29]. It is possible that during early development and differentiation of different myogenic lineages, myogenic factors and also CRPs act cooperatively, but exert distinct function at later stages, when the fine-tuning of cellular programs happens.
The demonstration that the Csrp2 gene is silenced during cellular transformation and CRP2 protein induces growth-inhibitory effects when overexpressed in cancer cells points to a critical role in the control of normal cell growth. Future studies will clarify whether mice or cells lacking CRP2 will be more susceptible to tumor promoters or other physiological stress factors. Moreover, the phenotype of mice lacking several members of the CRP family will be highly informative as it directly addresses the question of mutual functional substitution and redundancy.