Display of cell surface sites for fibronectin assembly is modulated by cell adherence to (1)F3 and C-terminal modules of fibronectin.

BACKGROUND: Fibronectin-null cells assemble soluble fibronectin shortly after adherence to a substrate coated with intact fibronectin but not when adherent to the cell-binding domain of fibronectin (modules (7)F3-(10)F3). Interactions of adherent cells with regions of adsorbed fibronectin other than modules (7)F3-(10)F3, therefore, are required for early display of the cell surface sites that initiate and direct fibronectin assembly. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: To identify these regions, coatings of proteolytically derived or recombinant pieces of fibronectin containing modules in addition to (7)F3-(10)F3 were tested for effects on fibronectin assembly by adherent fibronectin-null fibroblasts. Pieces as large as one comprising modules (2)F3-(14)F3, which include the heparin-binding and cell adhesion domains, were not effective in supporting fibronectin assembly. Addition of module (1)F3 or the C-terminal modules to modules (2)F3-(14)F3 resulted in some activity, and addition of both (1)F3 and the C-terminal modules resulted in a construct, (1)F3-C, that best mimicked the activity of a coating of intact fibronectin. Constructs (1)F3-C V0, (1)F3-C V64, and (1)F3-C Delta(V(15)F3(10)F1) were all able to support fibronectin assembly, suggesting that (1)F3 through (11)F1 and/or (12)F1 were important for activity. Coatings in which the active parts of (1)F3-C were present in different proteins were much less active than intact (1)F3-C. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that (1)F3 acts together with C-terminal modules to induce display of fibronectin assembly sites on adherent cells.

The spacing effect depends on an encoding deficit, retrieval, and time in working memory: evidence from once-presented words.

The spacing effect in list learning occurs because identical massed items suffer encoding deficits and because spaced items benefit from retrieval and increased time in working memory. Requiring the retrieval of identical items produced a spacing effect for recall and recognition, both for intentional and incidental learning. Not requiring retrieval produced spacing only for intentional learning because intentional learning encourages retrieval. Once-presented words provided baselines for these effects. Next, massed and spaced word pairs were judged for matches on their first three letters, forcing retrieval. The words were not identical, so there was no encoding deficit. Retrieval could and did cause spacing only for the first word of each pair; time in working memory, only for the second.