Although S100A6 overexpression in pancreatic and other cancers, including gastric (
Yang et al, 2007), thyroid (
Brown et al, 2006), breast (
Cross et al, 2005) and colorectal (
Komatsu et al, 2000) has been documented, its precise role in cancer is not known. In pancreatic cancer, the expression of S100A6 appears to correlate with aggressive disease in that high levels of tumour S100A6 are associated with poorer outcome (
Vimalachandran et al, 2005), whereas pancreatic cancer cells depleted of S100A6 are less invasive (
Ohuchida et al, 2005). A link between S100A6 and colon cancer invasion has also been suggested by the observation that increased expression of S100A6 is found at the leading edges of colon cancer tissues (
Komatsu et al, 2000). However, the molecular mechanism responsible for these effects has not been characterised. Our proteomic-based approach to identify S100A6-binding partners was performed with the aim of shedding light on S100A6 function in pancreatic cancer.
Our study identified the known S100A6-binding proteins, tropomyosin
β, annexin 11 and annexin 2 as well as novel binding protein lamin B1, as candidate S100A6 interactors in pancreatic cancer cells. The interaction and the colocalisation of S100A6 and tropomyosin have been documented (
Golitsina et al, 1996;
Orre et al, 2007). Tropomyosins have been shown to regulate microfilament organisation and actin dynamics (
Boyd et al, 1995;
Gunning et al, 2008), with reduction in tropomyosin 1 levels leading to anchorage independent growth (
Boyd et al, 1995). Breen
et al observed disorganisation of tropomyosin associated cytoskeleton filament networks after depletion of S100A6 from fibroblasts (
Breen and Tang, 2003). Although we did not study the interaction between tropomyosin and S100A6 here, it is possible that the loss of motility observed after S100A6 depletion is caused, at least in part, by an involvement of S100A6 with tropomyosin. Annexin 11 is widely expressed and roles in cell division (
Farnaes and Ditzel, 2003) and cytokenesis (
Tomas et al, 2004) have been reported. The binding of annexin 11 to S100A6 has been shown to take place in the nuclear envelope (
Tomas and Moss, 2003), where the complex may have a function in membrane deconstruction during nuclear envelope breakdown in mitosis. Lamin B1 is a major component of the nuclear lamina that influences many aspects of cellular functions including proliferation, differentiation, transcription and apoptosis (
Dechat et al, 2008). Although it has not been reported to bind S100A6, lamin B has been shown to colocalise with S100A6 at focal points within the nucleus (
Tomas and Moss, 2003).
Annexin 2 is a member of a family of calcium-dependent, phospholipid-binding proteins, possessing a number of intracellular activities such as regulation of exocytosis, and extracellular activities such as fibrinolysis through its interaction with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) (
Gerke et al, 2005). It is present in most cells as either a monomeric form within the cytoplasm or as a tetramer, comprising two molecules of annexin 2 and two of S100A10, localised to the plasma membrane-actin cytoskeleton interface. Although S100A10 is the best-characterised binding partner, annexin 2 has also been shown to interact with other S100 family members. For example, an interaction with S100A4 has been described (
Semov et al, 2005). This interaction was accompanied by accelerated tPA-mediated plasminogen activation in solution as well as on endothelial cell surfaces (
Semov et al, 2005), similar to that described for the Anx2/S100A10 complex. Interaction with S100A6 has also been reported (
Zeng et al, 1993). Using matrix-immobilised S100A6,
Zeng et al (1993) recovered annexin 2 from a preparation of bovine heart proteins. Our demonstration that S100A6 and annexin 2 coimmunoprecipitate with either S100A6 or annexin 2 antibodies, along with their colocalisation within the cytoplasm and membranes of pancreatic cancer cells, suggest that S100A6 may be a significant annexin 2-binding partner in pancreatic cancer cells. Moreover, our observation that high levels of S100A6 correlated with the expression of membranous annexin 2 in patient tumours whilst low S100A6 levels correlated with a lack of membranous annexin 2 suggests that S100A6 may affect the localisation of annexin 2 to membranes. This was further supported by the finding that depletion of S100A6 in cultured pancreatic cancer cells was found to result in diminished numbers of cells expressing membranous annexin 2. A similar relationship between annexin 2 and S100A10 was reported by
Deora et al (2004) who studied the translocation of annexin 2 from the cytoplasm to the cell surface of endothelial cells after the application of mild heat. The authors found that depletion of S100A10 from endothelial cells resulted in reduced surface expression of annexin 2, indicating that S100A10 expression was important for cell surface translocation of annexin 2.
The most striking phenotype of S100A6 depletion from pancreatic cancer cells in our study was the dramatic loss of cell motility, observed in both Boyden chamber and wound healing assays. This loss of motility is likely to contribute to the reduced invasion observed when S100A6 levels are depleted. Relatively little is known about the contribution of S100A6 to cellular motility. The only other published study, which to our knowledge examined the effect of S100A6 on motility, showed a decrease in the motility of one of three osteosarcoma cell lines after adenoviral-mediated overexpression of S100A6 (
Luu et al, 2005). Interestingly in osteosarcoma, a trend was observed between decreased metastasis and increased S100A6 staining, contrasting the findings in melanoma and colorectal cancer (
Maelandsmo et al, 1997;
Komatsu et al, 2000). Whether S100A6 contributes to pancreatic cancer cell motility through interaction with annexin 2 is not yet clear. However, the observed positive correlation in this study between high S100A6 levels and the localisation of annexin 2 to the plasma membrane in pancreatic cancer cells may have significance with respect to the ability of these cells to move, as annexin 2 has been implicated in the regulation of actin dynamics, cell spreading and wound closure (
Hayes et al, 2006;
Babbin et al, 2007;
de Graauw et al, 2008). Hayes
et al showed that annexin 2 was concentrated in the dynamic actin-rich protrusions of motile cells and that siRNA-mediated depletion of annexin 2 led to loss of protrusive and retractile activity (
Hayes et al, 2006). More recently,
Babbin et al (2007) observed that depletion of annexin 2 from Caco-2 epithelial cells resulted in reductions in cell spreading and wound closure. Finally, the work of
de Graauw et al (2008) pointed towards the phosphorylation of annexin 2 as a key event in the remodelling of the actin cytoskeleton during cell spreading. Thus, if high levels of S100A6 promote or facilitate annexin 2 translocation to the cell membrane, this may positively enhance cell motility. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that the relationship between membranous expression of annexin 2 and S100A6 level is a consequence, rather than a cause, of the effect of S100A6 on motility. In addition, the interaction between annexin 2 and S100A6 may contribute to increased tPA activity, which could lead to a variety of effects, potentially including increased cell motility (
Ortiz-Zapater et al, 2007;
Sharma and Sharma, 2007).
In summary, our study has provided insight into candidate S100A6-binding partners in pancreatic cancer and has shown a positive relationship between the cellular levels of S100A6 and the localisation of annexin 2 to the cell membrane. Finally, our findings provide new insight into S100A6 function, namely that it promotes pancreatic cancer cell motility.