To examine the role of SHIP in insulin-induced mitogenic signaling, we used a truncated SHIP lacking the SH2 domain (deltaSH2-SHIP) and a Y917/1020F-SHIP (2F-SHIP) in which two tyrosines contributing to Shc binding were mutated to phenylalanine. Wild-type (WT)-, deltaSH2-, and 2F-SHIP were transiently transfected into Rat1 fibroblasts overexpressing insulin receptors (HIRc). Insulin-stimulated tyrosine phosphorylation of WT-SHIP and deltaSH2-SHIP, whereas tyrosine phosphorylation of 2F-SHIP was not detectable, indicating that 917/1020-Tyr are key phosphorylation sites on SHIP. Although SHIP can bind via its 917/1020-Tyr residues and SH2 domain to Shc PTB domain and 317-Tyr residue, respectively, insulin-induced SHIP association with Shc was more greatly decreased in 2F-SHIP cells than that in deltaSH2-SHIP cells. Insulin stimulation of Shc association with Grb2, which is important for p21ras-MAP kinase activation, was decreased by overexpression of WT- and 2F-SHIP. Importantly, insulin-induced Shc x Grb2 association was not detectably reduced in deltaSH2-SHIP cells. In accordance with the extent of Shc association with Grb2, insulin-induced MAP kinase activation was relatively decreased in both WT-SHIP and 2F-SHIP cells, but not in deltaSH2-SHIP cells. To examine the functional role of SHIP in insulin's biological action, insulin-induced mitogenesis was compared among these transfected cells. Insulin stimulation of thymidine incorporation and bromodeoxyuridine incorporation was decreased in WT-SHIP cells compared with that of control HIRc cells. Expression of 2F-SHIP also significantly reduced insulin-induced mitogenesis, whereas it was only slightly affected by overexpression of deltaSH2-SHIP. Furthermore, the reduction of insulin-induced mitogenesis in WT-SHIP cells was partly compensated by coexpression of Shc. These results indicate that SHIP plays a negative regulatory role in insulin-induced mitogenesis and that the SH2 domain of SHIP is important for its negative regulatory function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wada et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: