Cited by 161

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Trafficking defects in WASH-knockout fibroblasts originate from collapsed endosomal and lysosomal networks

Gomez, Timothy S., Gorman, Jacquelyn A., Artal-Martinez de Narvajas, Amaia, Koenig, Alexander O., Billadeau, Daniel D.·2012·Molecular Biology of the Cell

Abstract

The Arp2/3-activator Wiskott–Aldrich syndrome protein and Scar homologue (WASH) is suggested to regulate actin-dependent membrane scission during endosomal sorting, but its cellular roles have not been fully elucidated. To investigate WASH function, we generated tamoxifen-inducible WASH-knockout mouse embryonic fibroblasts (WASHout MEFs). Of interest, although EEA1+endosomes were enlarged, collapsed, and devoid of filamentous-actin and Arp2/3 in WASHout MEFs, we did not observe elongated membrane tubules emanating from these disorganized endomembranes. However, collapsed WASHout endosomes harbored segregated subdomains, containing either retromer cargo recognition complex–associated proteins or EEA1. In addition, we observed global collapse of LAMP1+lysosomes, with some lysosomal membrane domains associated with endosomes. Both epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and transferrin receptor (TfnR) exhibited changes in steady-state cellular localization. EGFR was directed to the lysosomal compartment and exhibited reduced basal levels in WASHout MEFs. However, although TfnR was accumulated with collapsed endosomes, it recycled normally. Moreover, EGF stimulation led to efficient EGFR degradation within enlarged lysosomal structures. These results are consistent with the idea that discrete receptors differentially traffic via WASH-dependent and WASH-independent mechanisms and demonstrate that WASH-mediated F-actin is requisite for the integrity of both endosomal and lysosomal networks in mammalian cells.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1091/mbc.e12-02-0101

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Regulation of branched F-actin formation by WASH is needed for proper morphology of the endolysosomal system and endosomal trafficking of a broad range of cargoes.

    “Regulation of branched F-actin formation by WASH is needed for proper morphology of the endolysosomal system and endosomal trafficking of a broad range of cargoes37,39,41–44”

    From Endosomal PI(3)P regulation by the COMMD/CCDC22/CCDC93 (CCC) complex controls membrane protein recycling (2019) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Results show that loss of WASH-mediated F-actin causes endosomal collapse, and the Discussion reports altered lysosomal morphology. The paper limits trafficking defects to a subset of receptors: EGFR is affected, but transferrin-receptor recycling is unaffected. It therefore does not establish a requirement for trafficking a broad range of cargoes. The indexed copy provides section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • WASH serves as an actin nucleation-promoting factor for the ARP2/3 complex, which drives the generation of branched F-actin filaments on endosomal membranes.

    “WASH serves as an actin nucleation-promoting factor for the ARP2/3 complex, which drives the generation of branched F-actin filaments on endosomal membranes37–40”

    From Endosomal PI(3)P regulation by the COMMD/CCDC22/CCDC93 (CCC) complex controls membrane protein recycling (2019) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Introduction identifies WASH as a member of the WASP family of nucleation-promoting factors, which activate Arp2/3 to stimulate F-actin polymerization. The Results show that WASH loss eliminates endosomal F-actin and Arp2/3-rich puncta. Our copy does not specify that the resulting endosomal filaments are branched, so that detail is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • WASH is recruited to endosomes where it is necessary for branched F-actin deposition, a process essential to maintain endolysosomal network structure, promote fission of membrane tubules, and traffic cargo proteins.

    “WASH is recruited to endosomes where it is necessary for branched F-actin deposition, a process that is essential to maintain the structure of the endolysosomal network, to promote effective fission of membrane tubules and trafficking of cargo proteins37,39,41,43,44.”

    From Endosomal PI(3)P regulation by the COMMD/CCDC22/CCDC93 (CCC) complex controls membrane protein recycling (2019) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Introduction and Results support WASH recruitment to endosomes and its role in endosomal F-actin, endolysosomal network integrity, and cargo trafficking. The Discussion, however, says the knockout results do not establish a role in tubule scission; it treats that role as possible rather than showing that WASH-dependent actin is essential for fission. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Specific endosomal membrane sub-domains are enriched for either degradative components such as ESCRT or recycling machinery including Retromer, Retriever, the CCC complex, and WASH-dependent actin patches.

    “A number of studies have shown that specific endosomal membrane sub-domains are enriched for either degradative components such as ESCRT or recycling machinery including Retromer, Retriever, the CCC complex, and WASH-dependent actin patches9,34–44”

    From Mechanism and regulation of cargo entry into the Commander endosomal recycling pathway (2024) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Results section ('Retromer and SHRC components designate an EEA1-negative subdomain'; page not provided) identifies distinct endosomal subdomains enriched in retromer and WASH-complex components. Our copy does not establish the claimed enrichment of ESCRT, Retriever, or the CCC complex, or demonstrate WASH-dependent actin patches in those subdomains; the reported subdomains were observed in WASH-knockout fibroblasts. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The common labelling of the WASH complex by both Retromer and Retriever is consistent with their known biochemical association and physical co-localisation to the retrieval sub-domain and the central role of actin polymerisation and actin turnover in Retromer- and Retriever-dependent cargo sorting.

    “Building on this, the common labelling of the WASH complex by both Retromer and Retriever (Fig. 2E) is entirely consistent with their known biochemical association and physical co-localisation to the retrieval sub-domain and the central role of actin polymerisation and actin turnover in Retromer- and Retriever-dependent cargo sorting17,19,24,56–58.”

    From Mapping of endosomal proximity proteomes reveals Retromer as a hub for RAB GTPase regulation (2025) · cites this paper as [57]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Arighi CN, 2004, J Cell Biol, 165, 123, 10.1083/jcb.200312055 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Carnell M, 2011, J Cell Biol, 193, 831, 10.1083/jcb.201009119 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Cullen PJ, 2008, Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 9, 574, 10.1038/nrm2427 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Dawlaty MM, 2006, Methods, 39, 370, 10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.06.009 · DOI
  5. den Hartigh JC, 1992, J Cell Biol, 119, 349, 10.1083/jcb.119.2.349 · DOI
  6. Derivery E, 2009, Dev Cell, 17, 712, 10.1016/j.devcel.2009.09.010 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Duleh SN, 2010, Cytoskeleton (Hoboken), 67, 193, 10.1002/cm.20437 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Ferguson SM, 2009, Dev Cell, 17, 811, 10.1016/j.devcel.2009.11.005 · DOI
  9. Goley ED, 2006, Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 7, 713, 10.1038/nrm2026 · DOI
  10. Gomez TS, 2009, Dev Cell, 17, 699, 10.1016/j.devcel.2009.09.009 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Harbour ME, 2010, J Cell Sci, 123, 3703, 10.1242/jcs.071472 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Harbour ME, 2012, Biochem J, 442, 209, 10.1042/BJ20111761 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Harterink M, 2011, Nat Cell Biol, 13, 914, 10.1038/ncb2281 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Hernandez-Valladares M, 2010, Nat Struct Mol Biol, 17, 497, 10.1038/nsmb.1792 · DOI
  15. 10.1091/mbc.e11-12-1059 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Jia D, 2010, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 107, 10442, 10.1073/pnas.0913293107 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Linardopoulou EV, 2007, PLoS Genet, 3, e237, 10.1371/journal.pgen.0030237 · DOI
  18. Puthenveedu MA, 2010, Cell, 143, 761, 10.1016/j.cell.2010.10.003 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Raiborg C, 2002, Nat Cell Biol, 4, 394, 10.1038/ncb791 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Raiborg C, 2001, EMBO J, 20, 5008, 10.1093/emboj/20.17.5008 · DOI
  21. Rottner K, 2010, Trends Cell Biol, 20, 650, 10.1016/j.tcb.2010.08.014 · DOI
  22. Sorkin A, 2002, Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 3, 600, 10.1038/nrm883 · DOI
  23. Suetsugu S, 2012, Trends Cell Biol, 22, 141, 10.1016/j.tcb.2012.01.001 · DOI
  24. Takenawa T, 2007, Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 8, 37, 10.1038/nrm2069 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Temkin P, 2011, Nat Cell Biol, 13, 715, 10.1038/ncb2252 · DOI · Paper page
  26. van Weering JRT, 2010, Semin Cell Dev Biol, 21, 371, 10.1016/j.semcdb.2009.11.009 · DOI
  27. van Weering JRT, 2012, Traffic, 13, 94, 10.1111/j.1600-0854.2011.01297.x · DOI
  28. 10.1091/mbc.e10-01-0074 · DOI
  29. Zech T, 2011, J Cell Sci, 124, 3753, 10.1242/jcs.080986 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Zhang J-S, 2011, Oncogene, 30, 3705, 10.1038/onc.2011.90 · DOI
  31. Zoncu R, 2009, Cell, 136, 1110, 10.1016/j.cell.2009.01.032 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Gomez, T. S., Gorman, J. A., Artal-Martinez de Narvajas, A., Koenig, A. O., & Billadeau, D. D.
Affiliations
  • Department of Immunology, Division of Oncology Research, and Schulze Center for Novel Therapeutics, and
  • College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905
Venue
Molecular Biology of the Cell
Published
2012-08-15
Volume
23
Issue
16
Pages
3215-3228
ISSN
  • 1059-1524
  • 1939-4586
Cited by
161
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review