Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Cell Biology
Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 763283, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/763283
Review Article

The Role of Lipid Rafts in Cancer Cell Adhesion and Migration

Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, 2-2 Yamada-oka, Osaka, Suita 565-0871, Japan

Received 2 August 2011; Revised 20 September 2011; Accepted 21 September 2011

Academic Editor: Motoharu Seiki

Copyright © 2012 Toshiyuki Murai. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Lipid rafts are cholesterol-enriched microdomains of the cell membrane and possess a highly dynamic nature. They have been involved in various cellular functions including the regulation of cell adhesion and membrane signaling through proteins within lipid rafts. The dynamic features of the cancer cell surface may modulate the malignant phenotype of cancer, including adhesion disorders and aggressive phenotypes of migration and invasion. Recently, it was demonstrated that lipid rafts play critical roles in cancer cell adhesion and migration. This article summarizes the important roles of lipid rafts in cancer cell adhesion and migration, with a focus on the current state of knowledge. This article will improve the understanding of cancer progression and lead to the development of novel targets for cancer therapy.

1. Introduction

The alternation of cell adhesion and highly migratory behavior are the most prominent features of cancer cells, and play critical roles in their aggressive invasion and metastatic spread [1]. These processes appear to be facilitated by remodeling of the extracellular matrix (ECM) of the tumor microenvironment and adhesion molecules at the cancer cell surface and affected by both the interaction between ECM and adhesion molecules and by growth factor signaling [2, 3]. The proteolytic ectodomain cleavage and release (shedding) of adhesion molecules are also critical regulatory steps in cancer cell adhesion and migration [4, 5].

To date, cholesterol-enriched membrane microdomains called “lipid rafts” have been implicated in a variety of pathogeneses [6]; neurological diseases including Alzheimer’s [7], Parkinson’s [8], and prion diseases [9]; cardiovascular diseases; immune disorders such as systemic lupus erythematosus [10] and HIV infection [11]. Lipid rafts have been also implicated in signaling pathways in cancer progression [12], but how these microdomains affect the adhesion and migration of invasive cancer cells remains obscure. In this paper, recent findings on the roles of lipid rafts in cancer cell adhesion and migration will be reviewed.

2. Lipid Raft Structure

The prevailing model of cellular membrane structure was proposed by Singer and Nicolson, and this model is known as the fluid mosaic model, where globular proteins float in a lipid bilayer with a basic structure [13]. Later, the model was improved by Simons and van Meer, who suggested the existence of microdomains or “rafts” in the plasma membrane of epithelial cells [14]. In the current understanding of the lipid raft model, cholesterol- and sphingolipid-enriched microdomains of the plasma membrane exhibit a biophysical state comparable to the liquid-ordered phase floating in the liquid-disordered phase of the membrane [15]. One subtype of lipid rafts exists in flask-shaped plasma membrane invaginations called caveolae [16].

Lipid rafts consist of assemblies of cholesterol, sphingolipids including sphingomyelin and gangliosides, and certain types of proteins [15]. Sphingolipids contain saturated fatty acyl chains in their structure, thereby allowing cholesterol to be tightly intercalated in the sphingolipid assemblies to form liquid-ordered microdomains. The most important properties of lipid rafts are that they are small, dynamic, and heterogeneous and can include or exclude proteins to variable extents [17, 18]. Proteins with raft affinity include glycosylphosphatidylinositol-anchored proteins, palmitoylated proteins, doubly acylated proteins, such as Src family kinases (SFKs), and transmembrane proteins such as CD44. Lipid rafts have been implicated in various physiological cellular processes, such as protein membrane trafficking and signal transduction [18, 19].

3. Tools for Lipid Raft Analyses

3.1. Lipid Raft Markers

Lipid rafts can be fractionated as detergent-resistant membrane (DRM) fractions using nonionic detergents such as Triton X-100 [18, 20]. Cholesterol- and sphingolipid-enriched rafts are insoluble in Triton X-100 at 4°C and float to a low-density area during gradient centrifugation. Notably, the constitution of DRM is affected by the type and concentration of detergents, and lipid rafts contained in DRM are nonnative aggregates. Marker molecules for lipid rafts are frequently used in biochemical and cytochemical analyses. The ganglioside GM1 is the most commonly used marker among putative lipid components of rafts; it is detected using the GM1-binding molecule, cholera toxin subunit B (CTxB) [21]. Protein markers such as caveolins and flotillins are also used for identifying lipid rafts [22].

3.2. Cholesterol Clathrate

Membrane cholesterol serves as a spacer for the hydrocarbon chains of sphingolipids and maintains the assembled microdomains of lipid rafts. Thus, cholesterol depletion leads to the disorganization of lipid raft structure. Methyl-β-cyclodextrin (MβCD), a torus-shaped cyclic oligosaccharide composed of 7 D-glucopyranosyl units linked by α-1,4 glycosidic bonds, is used to extract membrane cholesterol selectively and to disrupt lipid rafts [23]. MβCD is a practical tool for membrane studies as it neither binds to nor inserts into the plasma membrane. MβCD-mediated manipulation of membrane cholesterol is now a standard methodology in the research of lipid rafts [18, 24]. However, MβCD may deplete cholesterol from both the raft and nonraft domains of the membrane as well as alter the distribution of cholesterol between the plasma membrane and organelle membranes under high concentrations (i.e., >10 mM). Thus, it is recommended that a cholesterol-repletion experiment using cholesterol-MβCD complex and raft disruption with other cholesterol-sequestering agents as described below would be performed for confirmation.

3.3. Cholesterol-Binding Antibiotics

Filipin, a fluorescent polyene macrolide antibiotic from Streptomyces filipinensis, binds cholesterol and disperses it in the membrane. Filipin is thus used as a cholesterol probe and a cholesterol sequestration agent in the research of lipid rafts [25, 26]. Other than filipin, nystatin and amphotericin are also used in lipid-raft analyses.

3.4. Inhibitors for Cholesterol Biosynthesis

Statins are widely used inhibitors of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase, the key rate-limiting enzyme in the biosynthesis of cholesterol. Statins lower cellular cholesterol content and thus are useful in the analysis of lipid-raft function. Prevention studies using statins have confirmed its significance in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases [27]. It has also been demonstrated that statins may be an effective preventive medicine for neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease [28]. Although the various population-based reports of the effects of statins on cancer are controversial, recent epidemiologic studies suggest that statins inhibit the progression of certain cancers [29]. Recent evidence suggests that statins blocked the adhesion and migration processes of cancer cells [30, 31]. Cholesterol reduction is a potential therapy for suppressing cancer cell adhesion and migration.

4. Lipid Rafts and Proteolytic Processing of Adhesion Receptors

CD44 is a major cell adhesion molecule expressed in cancer cells and implicated in cancer cell adhesion, migration, and metastasis [3234]. A number of reports have demonstrated that CD44 is present in lipid rafts [3540], but the role of lipid rafts in cancer cell adhesion and migration has not been elucidated.

Recently, it was demonstrated that lipid rafts play a crucial role in the localization and functionality of CD44, which regulates cancer cell adhesion and migration [31]. Treatment of human glioma cells with the lipid-raft-disrupting agent MβCD resulted in an increase in CD44 shedding (Figure 1(a)) [31]. Similar patterns are observed when cells were treated with another lipid-raft-disrupting agent, filipin, and also in the case of pancreatic cancer cells. Analyses of Triton X-100 solubility of CD44 and its processing enzyme, a disintegrin and metalloproteinase 10 (ADAM10), revealed that CD44 was present in both Triton-X-100-insoluble and Triton-X-100-soluble fractions of untreated cells, whereas ADAM10 was largely in Triton-X-100-soluble fraction [30, 31]. Treatment with MβCD or filipin, however, led to loss of CD44 from the Triton-X-100-insoluble fraction. These results suggest that the perturbation of the ordered distribution of CD44 and ADAM10 on the membrane increased the probability of enzyme-to-substrate contact that leads to enhanced CD44 shedding. Membrane microdomains such as lipid rafts serve as platforms for the nanoscale assembly of membrane proteins. Simvastatin, one of the statins most frequently used in the clinical treatment of hypercholesterolemia, also enhanced CD44 shedding (Figure 1(b)). Moreover, simvastatin blocked the stimulation of glioma cell migration by hyaluronan oligosaccharides or epidermal growth factor (EGF) (Figure 1(c)) [4143]. Taken together, these results suggest that lowering cholesterol levels may disturb the regulated CD44 membrane localization that is necessary for enhanced cancer cell adhesion and migration (Figure 2).

fig1
Figure 1: Cholesterol lowering stimulates CD44 shedding and suppresses cancer cell migration. (a) Modulation of cellular cholesterol affects CD44 shedding from human glioma cells. Cells were cholesterol-depleted (MβCD), cholesterol-replenished (MβCD/Chol), or left untreated (control), and CD44 shedding was assessed by measurement of soluble CD44 in the culture medium. (b) Effect of simvastatin on CD44 shedding. Cells were incubated in the presence or absence of simvastatin, and CD44 shedding was assessed by measurement of soluble CD44 in the culture medium. (c) Effect of simvastatin on CD44-dependent cell migration. Cells were incubated in the presence or absence of simvastatin, and treated with hyaluronan oligosaccharides (o-HA) or EGF.
763283.fig.002
Figure 2: A putative model of the lipid-raft-related cancer cell adhesion and migration.

Recent studies on the shedding of various membrane proteins revealed that cholesterol depletion triggers the shedding of these molecules, including amyloid precursor protein (APP) [44], IL-6 receptor [45], CD30 [46], L1-CAM [47], and collagen types XVII [48] and XXIII [49]. It is especially noteworthy that APP and CD30 were found to be strongly associated with lipid rafts, whereas their processing enzymes, ADAM10 and ADAM17, respectively, are excluded from lipid rafts [44, 46]. These findings suggest that lipid rafts may play a critical role in regulating the accessibility of processing enzymes to their substrate proteins during both constitutive and regulated shedding [50].

Na+-H+ exchanger interacts with CD44 in lipid rafts and may regulate cancer cell migration [39]. Complement component receptor gC1qR is a lipid raft protein that is concentrated in the lamellipodia along with CD44, regulating A549 lung adenocarcinoma cell migration and metastasis [51].

5. Cell Adhesion Signaling in Lipid Rafts

Integrins are transmembrane adhesion receptors composed of α and β subunits that facilitate the anchorage of cells to components of the ECM or bind to ligands on other cells to support cell-cell adhesion. Recent evidence suggests that the microorganization of lipids in the plasma membrane can affect integrin-mediated cellular functions [52]. Integrin-mediated cell adhesion to the ECM is regarded as one of the primary stages of SFKs’ function. SFKs are activated in lipid rafts, and lipid-raft-specific inhibition of SFKs abrogates adhesion of breast cancer cells [53]. The transmembrane phosphoprotein, Cbp, a C-terminal Src kinase-binding protein, serves as a sensor of SFK activity in integrin-mediated cell adhesion signaling [54].

CD44 is an important marker for various cancer stem cells (CSCs), such as pancreatic [55], breast [56], ovarian [57], colon [58], and bladder CSCs [59]. However, why CD44 is a CSC marker remains largely unknown. Recently, it was reported that lipid-raft-associated CD44 is required for the survival of CSCs in the suspension condition through CD44-SFK-integrin signaling, leading to tumor metastasis [60].

Lipid rafts are necessary platforms for membrane receptor redistribution and the acquisition of a polarized phenotype during MCF-7 mammary adenocarcinoma cell migration [61]. Disruption of lipid rafts with MβCD abolishes lamellipodia formation and inhibits the chemotactic migration of MCF-7 cells [61].

6. Invasion Machinery and Lipid Rafts

A variety of invasive cancer cells form invadopodia, subcellular structures with ventral membrane protrusions that induce ECM degradation, a pivotal process in cancer invasion [62]. The ECM degradation activity of invadopodia is mainly mediated by membrane type 1-matrix metalloproteinase (MT1-MMP) concentrated at the surface of invadopodia [4]. Localization to lipid rafts is essential for the internalization of MT1-MMP. Lipid rafts are required for invadopodia formation in breast cancer cells and ECM degradation [63]. Caveolin-1 is predominantly expressed in invasive breast cancer cell lines and is well correlated with invadopodia activity, implying that caveolin-1 plays important roles in the trafficking of the components of invadopodia including MT1-MMP [63].

Concluding Remarks

I have summarized here the nature of lipid rafts and their role in cancer cell adhesion and migration focusing on the current state of knowledge, although many questions about the nature of lipid rafts remain unsolved. Future studies may corroborate a variety of aspects of the role of lipid rafts in the regulation of adhesive and migratory properties of invasive cancer cells.

The elucidation of the mechanism underlying the lipid-raft-mediated regulation of cancer cell adhesion and migration will provide new insights into the mechanism of cancer invasion and metastasis and also provide a wealth of new targets for cancer prevention and therapy for clinical medicine.

Abbreviations

ADAM:A disintegrin and metalloproteinase
APP:Amyloid precursor protein
CSC:Cancer stem cells
CTxB:Cholera toxin subunit B
DRM:Detergent-resistant membrane
ECM:Extracellular matrix
MβCD:Methyl-β-cyclodextrin
SFK:Src family kinase
EGF:Epidermal growth factor
MT1-MMP:Membrane type 1-matrix metalloproteinase.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan.

References

  1. D. Hanahan and R. A. Weinberg, “The hallmarks of cancer,” Cell, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 57–70, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. P. Friedl and K. Wolf, “Tumour-cell invasion and migration: diversity and escape mechanisms,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 362–374, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  3. M. Teodorczyk and A. Martin-Villalba, “Sensing invasion: cell surface receptors driving spreading of glioblastoma,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 222, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  4. Y. Itoh and M. Seiki, “MT1-MMP: a potent modifier of pericellular microenvironment,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 206, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  5. A. P. J. Huovila, A. J. Turner, M. Pelto-Huikko, I. Kärkkäinen, and R. M. Ortiz, “Shedding light on ADAM metalloproteinases,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 413–422, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  6. V. Michel and M. Bakovic, “Lipid rafts in health and disease,” Biology of the Cell, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 129–140, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  7. R. Ehehalt, P. Keller, C. Haass, C. Thiele, and K. Simons, “Amyloidogenic processing of the Alzheimer β-amyloid precursor protein depends on lipid rafts,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 160, no. 1, pp. 113–123, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  8. M. Hashimoto, T. Takenouchi, E. Rockenstein, and E. Masliah, “α-synuclein up-regulates expression of caveolin-1 and down-regulates extracellular signal-regulated kinase activity in B103 neuroblastoma cells: role in the pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease,” Journal of Neurochemistry, vol. 85, no. 6, pp. 1468–1479, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. A. Taraboulos, M. Scott, A. Semenov, D. Avraham, L. Laszlo, and S. B. Prusiner, “Cholesterol depletion and modification of COOH-terminal targeting sequence of the prion protein inhibit formation of the scrapie isoform,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 129, no. 1, pp. 121–132, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. E. C. Jury, P. S. Kabouridis, F. Flores-Borja, R. A. Mageed, and D. A. Isenberg, “Altered lipid raft-associated signaling and ganglioside expression in T lymphocytes from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 113, no. 8, pp. 1176–1187, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. G. del Real, S. Jiménez-Baranda, R. A. Lacalle et al., “Blocking of HIV-1 infection by targeting CD4 to nonraft membrane domains,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 196, no. 3, pp. 293–301, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. S. K. Patra, “Dissecting lipid raft facilitated cell signaling pathways in cancer,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, vol. 1785, no. 2, pp. 182–206, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  13. S. J. Singer and G. L. Nicolson, “The fluid mosaic model of the structure of cell membranes,” Science, vol. 175, no. 4023, pp. 720–731, 1972. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. K. Simons and G. Van Meer, “Lipid sorting in epithelial cells,” Biochemistry, vol. 27, no. 17, pp. 6197–6202, 1988. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. K. Simons and E. Ikonen, “Functional rafts in cell membranes,” Nature, vol. 387, no. 6633, pp. 569–572, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  16. R. G. Parton, M. Hanzal-Bayer, and J. F. Hancock, “Biogenesis of caveolae: a structural model for caveolin-induced domain formation,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 119, no. 5, pp. 787–796, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  17. M. D. Resh, “Fatty acylation of proteins: new insights into membrane targeting of myristoylated and palmitoylated proteins,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, vol. 1451, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. K. Simons and D. Toomre, “Lipid rafts and signal transduction,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 31–39, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. M. F. Hanzal-Bayer and J. F. Hancock, “Lipid rafts and membrane traffic,” FEBS Letters, vol. 581, no. 11, pp. 2098–2104, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  20. D. A. Brown and J. K. Rose, “Sorting of GPI-anchored proteins to glycolipid-enriched membrane subdomains during transport to the apical cell surface,” Cell, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 533–544, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. T. Harder, P. Scheiffele, P. Verkade, and K. Simons, “Lipid domain structure of the plasma membrane revealed by patching of membrane components,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 141, no. 4, pp. 929–942, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. E. J. Smart, G. A. Graf, M. A. McNiven et al., “Caveolins, liquid-ordered domains, and signal transduction,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 7289–7304, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. S. Ilangumaran and D. C. Hoessli, “Effects of cholesterol depletion by cyclodextrin on the sphingolipid microdomains of the plasma membrane,” Biochemical Journal, vol. 335, no. 2, pp. 433–440, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. U. Klein, G. Gimpl, and F. Fahrenholz, “Alteration of the myometrial plasma membrane cholesterol content with β-cyclodextrin modulates the binding affinity of the oxytocin receptor,” Biochemistry, vol. 34, no. 42, pp. 13784–13793, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. D. J. McGookey, K. Fagerberg, and R. G. W. Anderson, “Filipin-cholesterol complexes form in uncoated vesicle membrane derived from coated vesicles during receptor-mediated endocytosis of low density lipoprotein,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 96, no. 5, pp. 1273–1278, 1983. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. K. G. Rothberg, Y. S. Ying, B. A. Kamen, and R. G. W. Anderson, “Cholesterol controls the clustering of the glycophospholipid-anchored membrane receptor for 5-methyltetrahydrofolate,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 111, no. 6, pp. 2931–2938, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. R. Collins, J. Armitage, S. Parish, P. Sleight, and R. Peto, “MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20 536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial,” Lancet, vol. 360, no. 9326, pp. 7–22, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  28. H. Jick, G. L. Zornberg, S. S. Jick, S. Seshadri, and D. A. Drachman, “Statins and the risk of dementia,” Lancet, vol. 356, no. 9242, pp. 1627–1631, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. K. R. Solomon and M. R. Freeman, “Do the cholesterol-lowering properties of statins affect cancer risk?” Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 113–121, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  30. E. M. Adler, “Lost without a raft,” Science Signaling, vol. 4, no. 157, p. ec24, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  31. T. Murai, Y. Maruyama, K. Mio, H. Nishiyama, M. Suga, and C. Sato, “Low cholesterol triggers membrane microdomain-dependent CD44 shedding and suppresses tumor cell migration,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 286, no. 3, pp. 1999–2007, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  32. A. Aruffo, I. Stamenkovic, M. Melnick, C. B. Underhill, and B. Seed, “CD44 is the principal cell surface receptor for hyaluronate,” Cell, vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 1303–1313, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. L. Thomas, H. R. Byers, J. Vink, and I. Stamenkovic, “CD44H regulates tumor cell migration on hyaluronate-coated substrate,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 118, no. 4, pp. 971–977, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. U. Günthert, M. Hofmann, W. Rudy et al., “A new variant of glycoprotein CD44 confers metastatic potential to rat carcinoma cells,” Cell, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 13–24, 1991. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. S. Llangumaran, A. Briol, and D. C. Hoessli, “CD44 selectively associates with active Src family protein tyrosine kinases Lck and Fyn in glycosphingolipid-rich plasma membrane domains of human peripheral blood lymphocytes,” Blood, vol. 91, no. 10, pp. 3901–3908, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. S. Oliferenko, K. Paiha, T. Harder et al., “Analysis of CD44-containing lipid rafts: recruitment of annexin II and stabilization by the actin cytoskeleton,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 146, no. 4, pp. 843–854, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. C. Gómez-Moutón, J. L. Abad, E. Mira et al., “Segregation of leading-edge and uropod components into specific lipid rafts during T cell polarization,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 98, no. 17, pp. 9642–9647, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  38. L. M. Pierini, R. J. Eddy, M. Fuortes, S. Seveau, C. Casulo, and F. R. Maxfield, “Membrane lipid organization is critical for human neutrophil polarization,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 278, no. 12, pp. 10831–10841, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  39. L. Y. W. Bourguignon, P. A. Singleton, F. Diedrich, R. Stern, and E. Gilad, “CD44 interaction with Na+-H+ exchanger (NHE1) creates acidic microenvironments leading to hyaluronidase-2 and cathepsin B activation and breast tumor cell invasion,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 279, no. 26, pp. 26991–27007, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  40. J. L. Lee, M. J. Wang, P. R. Sudhir, and J. Y. Chen, “CD44 engagement promotes matrix-derived survival through the CD44-SRC-integrin axis in lipid rafts,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 28, no. 18, pp. 5710–5723, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  41. T. Murai, Y. Miyazaki, H. Nishinakamura et al., “Engagement of CD44 promotes Rac activation and CD44 cleavage during tumor cell migration,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 279, no. 6, pp. 4541–4550, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  42. T. Murai, T. Miyauchi, T. Yanagida, and Y. Sako, “Epidermal growth factor-regulated activation of Rac GTPase enhances CD44 cleavage by metalloproteinase disintegrin ADAM10,” Biochemical Journal, vol. 395, no. 1, pp. 65–71, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  43. K. N. Sugahara, T. Murai, H. Nishinakamura et al., “Hyaluronan oligosaccharides induce CD44 cleavage and promote cell migration in CD44-expressing tumor cells,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 278, no. 34, pp. 32259–32265, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  44. E. Kojro, G. Gimpl, S. Lammich, W. März, and F. Fahrenholz, “Low cholesterol stimulates the nonamyloidogenic pathway by its effect on the α-secretase ADAM 10,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 98, no. 10, pp. 5815–5820, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  45. V. Matthews, B. Schuster, S. Schütze et al., “Cellular cholesterol depletion triggers shedding of the human interleukin-6 receptor by ADAM10 and ADAM17 (TACE),” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 278, no. 40, pp. 38829–38839, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  46. B. von Tresckow, K. J. Kallen, E. P. von Strandmann et al., “Depletion of cellular cholesterol and lipid rafts increases shedding of CD30,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 172, no. 7, pp. 4324–4331, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. S. Mechtersheimer, P. Gutwein, N. Agmon-Levin et al., “Ectodomain shedding of L1 adhesion molecule promotes cell migration by autocrine binding to integrins,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 155, no. 4, pp. 661–673, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. E. P. Zimina, L. Bruckner-Tuderman, and C. W. Franzke, “Shedding of collagen XVII ectodomain depends on plasma membrane microenvironment,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 280, no. 40, pp. 34019–34024, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  49. G. Veit, E. P. Zimina, C. W. Franzke et al., “Shedding of collagen XXIII is mediated by furin and depends on the plasma membrane microenvironment,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 282, no. 37, pp. 27424–27435, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  50. B. Wolozin, “A fluid connection: cholesterol and Aβ,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 98, no. 10, pp. 5371–5373, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  51. K. B. Kim, J. S. Yi, N. Nguyen et al., “Cell-surface receptor for complement component C1q (gC1qR) is a key regulator for lamellipodia formation and cancer metastasis,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 286, no. 26, pp. 23093–23101, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  52. G. Pande, “The role of membrane lipids in regulation of integrin functions,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 569–574, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. T. Hitosugi, M. Sato, K. Sasaki, and Y. Umezawa, “Lipid raft-specific knockdown of Src family kinase activity inhibits cell adhesion and cell cycle progression of breast cancer cells,” Cancer Research, vol. 67, no. 17, pp. 8139–8148, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  54. T. Shima, S. Nada, and M. Okada, “Transmembrane phosphoprotein Cbp senses cell adhesion signaling mediated by Src family kinase in lipid rafts,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 100, no. 25, pp. 14897–14902, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  55. C. Li, D. G. Heidt, P. Dalerba et al., “Identification of pancreatic cancer stem cells,” Cancer Research, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 1030–1037, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  56. M. Al-Hajj, M. S. Wicha, A. Benito-Hernandez, S. J. Morrison, and M. F. Clarke, “Prospective identification of tumorigenic breast cancer cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 100, no. 7, pp. 3983–3988, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  57. S. Zhang, C. Balch, M. W. Chan et al., “Identification and characterization of ovarian cancer-initiating cells from primary human tumors,” Cancer Research, vol. 68, no. 11, pp. 4311–4320, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  58. P. Dalerba, S. J. Dylla, I. K. Park et al., “Phenotypic characterization of human colorectal cancer stem cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104, no. 24, pp. 10158–10163, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  59. K. S. Chan, I. Espinosa, M. Chao et al., “Identification, molecular characterization, clinical prognosis, and therapeutic targeting of human bladder tumor-initiating cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, no. 33, pp. 14016–14021, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  60. Y. J. Su, H. M. Lai, Y. W. Chang, G. Y. Chen, and J. L. Lee, “Direct reprogramming of stem cell properties in colon cancer cells by CD44,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 30, no. 15, pp. 3186–3199, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  61. S. Mañes, E. Mira, C. Gómez-Moutón et al., “Membrane raft microdomains mediate front-rear polarity in migrating cells,” EMBO Journal, vol. 18, no. 22, pp. 6211–6220, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  62. R. Buccione, J. D. Orth, and M. A. McNiven, “Foot and mouth: podosomes, invadopodia and circular dorsal ruffles,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 647–657, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  63. H. Yamaguchi, Y. Takeo, S. Yoshida, Z. Kouchi, Y. Nakamura, and K. Fukami, “Lipid rafts and caveolin-1 are required for invadopodia formation and extracellular matrix degradation by human breast cancer cells,” Cancer Research, vol. 69, no. 22, pp. 8594–8602, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus