Search

Urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP9, gelatinase B) have separately been recognized to play important roles in various tissue remodeling processes. In this study, we demonstrate that deficiency for MMP9 in combination with ablation of either uPA- or tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA)-catalyzed plasminogen activation is critical to accomplish normal gestation in mice. Gestation was also affected by simultaneous lack of MMP9 and the uPA receptor (uPAR). Interestingly, uPA-deficiency additionally exacerbated the effect of MMP9-deficiency on bone growth and an additive effect caused by combined lack in MMP9 and uPA was observed during healing of cutaneous wounds. By comparison, MMP9-deficiency combined with absence of either tPA or uPAR resulted in no significant effect on wound healing, indicating that the role of uPA during wound healing is independent of uPAR, when MMP9 is absent. Notably, compensatory upregulation of uPA activity was seen in wounds from MMP9-deficient mice. Taken together, these studies reveal essential functional dependency between MMP9 and uPA during gestation and tissue repair.

The urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) is a versatile three-domain GPI-anchored protein, which binds urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) and thereby focalises plasminogen activation on the cell surface. Generation of a proteolytic potential is essential in both normal physiological and pathological extracellular tissue remodelling processes. uPA can also cleave uPAR, resulting in liberation of the amino-terminal domain I, which encompasses binding sites for both uPA and the adhesion molecule, vitronectin. In order to localise the different uPAR forms on the plasma membrane of murine monocyte macrophage-like P388D.1 cells, we have now generated and characterised two high-affinity murine mAbs, mR3 and mR4, raised against murine uPAR. mR3 was found to recognise an epitope located in domain I of uPAR. Surface plasmon resonance analyses and cell binding studies revealed that this mAb was able to bind preformed complexes of murine pro-uPA and murine uPAR. In contrast, mR4 recognises domains II–III in uPAR and does not bind preformed pro-uPA–uPAR complexes in similar analyses. Immunofluorescence microscopy of P388D.1 cells revealed that mR3 stained the cells equally well in the presence or absence of saturation with the amino-terminal fragment of uPA, ATF. However, the signal intensity obtained using another uPAR domain I specific mAb, mR1, was significantly reduced upon ATF saturation. Furthermore, when adding ATF, mR4 selectively stained the cleaved receptor. Applying these newly generated mAbs, we additionally demonstrated that cleaved and intact uPAR was evenly distributed on the surface of these cells.

Objectives To evaluate the expression-and localization pattern of the urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR), focusing on its clinical implications in patients with urothelial neoplasia of the bladder treated with radical cystectomy. uPAR is a central molecule in tissue remodeling during cancer invasion and metastasis and is an established prognostic marker in cancer. The expression and localization of uPAR and its prognostic significance is only limitedly investigated in urothelial bladder neoplasia. Materials and methods The expression-and localization pattern of uPAR was investigated in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue from 149 patients treated with radical cystectomy between 1988 and 2005. uPAR expression was determined by immunohistochemistry and scored as either negative or positive. Separate values were obtained for cancer cells, macrophages, and myofibroblasts at the invasive front and tumor core, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the association of uPAR localization and score with clinicopathologic covariates and survival. Results uPAR positivity was seen in 122/137 (89%) and 118/149 (74%) of the neoplasias at the invasive front and tumor core, respectively. uPAR was primarily expressed by myofibroblasts and macrophages in the surrounding stroma as well as some cancer cells. A significant association between uPAR positivity and T-stage as well as grade was found for all 3 cell types in tumor core (P≤0.04 for all comparisons). In univariate analysis, the uPAR positive group had a shorter survival than the uPAR negative group (hazard ratio = 2.39; 95% CI: 1.15–5.01; P = 0.020). Conclusions The expression of uPAR is a possible prognostic marker that could be useful in identification of patients with aggressive, highly invasive tumors that could benefit from additional chemotherapy or more intensive follow-up after cystectomy.