The DNA repair kinase ATM regulates CD13 expression and cell migration.

Classically, ATM is known for its role in sensing double-strand DNA breaks, and subsequently signaling for their repair. Non-canonical roles of ATM include transcriptional silencing, ferroptosis, autophagy and angiogenesis. Angiogenesis mediated by ATM signaling has been shown to be VEGF-independent via p38 signaling. Independently, p38 signaling has been shown to upregulate metalloproteinase expression, including MMP-2 and MMP-9, though it is unclear if this is linked to ATM. Here, we demonstrate ATM regulates aminopeptidase-N (CD13/APN/ANPEP) at the protein level. Positive correlation was seen between ATM activity and CD13 protein expression using both "wildtype" (WT) and knockout (KO) ataxia telangiectasia (AT) cells through western blotting; with the same effect shown when treating neuroblastoma cancer cell line SH-SY5Y, as well as AT-WT cells, with ATM inhibitor (ATMi; KU55933). However, qPCR along with publically available RNAseq data from Hu et al. (J. Clin. Invest., 2021, 131, e139333), demonstrated no change in mRNA levels of CD13, suggesting that ATM regulates CD13 levels via controlling protein degradation. This is further supported by the observation that incubation with proteasome inhibitors led to restoration of CD13 protein levels in cells treated with ATMi. Migration assays showed ATM and CD13 inhibition impairs migration, with no additional effect observed when combined. This suggests an epistatic effect, and that both proteins may be acting in the same signaling pathway that influences cell migration. This work indicates a novel functional interaction between ATM and CD13, suggesting ATM may negatively regulate the degradation of CD13, and subsequently cell migration.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Stevenson, Page, Dowson, ElBadry, Barnieh, Falconer and El-Khamisy.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.