Tubulin cofactors and Arl2 are cage-like chaperones that regulate the soluble αβ-tubulin pool for microtubule dynamics

  1. Stanley Nithiananatham
  2. Sinh Le
  3. Elbert Seto
  4. Weitao Jia
  5. Julie Leary
  6. Kevin D Corbett
  7. Jeffrey K Moore
  8. Jawdat Al-Bassam  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, Davis, United States
  2. University of California, San Diego, United States
  3. University of Colorado School of Medicine, United States

Abstract

Microtubule dynamics and polarity stem from the polymerization of αß-tubulin heterodimers. Five conserved tubulin cofactors/chaperones and the Arl2 GTPase regulate α- and β-tubulin assembly into heterodimers and maintain the soluble tubulin pool in the cytoplasm, but their physical mechanisms are unknown. Here, we reconstitute a core tubulin chaperone consisting of tubulin cofactors TBCD, TBCE and Arl2, and reveal a cage-like structure for regulating αβ-tubulin. Biochemical assays and electron microscopy structures of multiple intermediates show the sequential binding of αβ-tubulin dimer followed by tubulin cofactor TBCC onto this chaperone, forming a ternary complex in which Arl2 GTP hydrolysis is activated to alter αβ-tubulin conformation. A GTP-state locked Arl2 mutant inhibits ternary complex dissociation in vitro and causes severe defects in microtubule dynamics in vivo. Our studies suggest a revised paradigm for tubulin cofactors and Arl2 functions as a catalytic chaperone that regulates soluble αβ-tubulin assembly and maintenance to support microtubule dynamics.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Stanley Nithiananatham

    Department of Molecular Cellular Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Sinh Le

    Department of Molecular Cellular Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Elbert Seto

    Department of Molecular Cellular Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Weitao Jia

    Department of Molecular Cellular Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Julie Leary

    Department of Molecular Cellular Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Kevin D Corbett

    Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jeffrey K Moore

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jawdat Al-Bassam

    Department of Molecular Cellular Biology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    For correspondence
    jawdat@ucdavis.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Anna Akhmanova, Utrecht University, Netherlands

Version history

  1. Received: May 18, 2015
  2. Accepted: July 24, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 24, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: August 18, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Nithiananatham et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,574
    views
  • 703
    downloads
  • 47
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Stanley Nithiananatham
  2. Sinh Le
  3. Elbert Seto
  4. Weitao Jia
  5. Julie Leary
  6. Kevin D Corbett
  7. Jeffrey K Moore
  8. Jawdat Al-Bassam
(2015)
Tubulin cofactors and Arl2 are cage-like chaperones that regulate the soluble αβ-tubulin pool for microtubule dynamics
eLife 4:e08811.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08811

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08811

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Birol Cabukusta, Shalom Borst Pauwels ... Jacques Neefjes
    Research Article

    Numerous lipids are heterogeneously distributed among organelles. Most lipid trafficking between organelles is achieved by a group of lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) that carry lipids using their hydrophobic cavities. The human genome encodes many intracellular LTPs responsible for lipid trafficking and the function of many LTPs in defining cellular lipid levels and distributions is unclear. Here, we created a gene knockout library targeting 90 intracellular LTPs and performed whole-cell lipidomics analysis. This analysis confirmed known lipid disturbances and identified new ones caused by the loss of LTPs. Among these, we found major sphingolipid imbalances in ORP9 and ORP11 knockout cells, two proteins of previously unknown function in sphingolipid metabolism. ORP9 and ORP11 form a heterodimer to localize at the ER-trans-Golgi membrane contact sites, where the dimer exchanges phosphatidylserine (PS) for phosphatidylinositol-4-phosphate (PI(4)P) between the two organelles. Consequently, loss of either protein causes phospholipid imbalances in the Golgi apparatus that result in lowered sphingomyelin synthesis at this organelle. Overall, our LTP knockout library toolbox identifies various proteins in control of cellular lipid levels, including the ORP9-ORP11 heterodimer, which exchanges PS and PI(4)P at the ER-Golgi membrane contact site as a critical step in sphingomyelin synthesis in the Golgi apparatus.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Kien Xuan Ngo, Huong T Vu ... Taro Uyeda
    Research Article

    The mechanism underlying the preferential and cooperative binding of cofilin and the expansion of clusters toward the pointed-end side of actin filaments remains poorly understood. To address this, we conducted a principal component analysis based on available filamentous actin (F-actin) and C-actin (cofilins were excluded from cofilactin) structures and compared to monomeric G-actin. The results strongly suggest that C-actin, rather than F-ADP-actin, represented the favourable structure for binding preference of cofilin. High-speed atomic force microscopy explored that the shortened bare half helix adjacent to the cofilin clusters on the pointed end side included fewer actin protomers than normal helices. The mean axial distance (MAD) between two adjacent actin protomers along the same long-pitch strand within shortened bare half helices was longer (5.0–6.3 nm) than the MAD within typical helices (4.3–5.6 nm). The inhibition of torsional motion during helical twisting, achieved through stronger attachment to the lipid membrane, led to more pronounced inhibition of cofilin binding and cluster formation than the presence of inorganic phosphate (Pi) in solution. F-ADP-actin exhibited more naturally supertwisted half helices than F-ADP.Pi-actin, explaining how Pi inhibits cofilin binding to F-actin with variable helical twists. We propose that protomers within the shorter bare helical twists, either influenced by thermal fluctuation or induced allosterically by cofilin clusters, exhibit characteristics of C-actin-like structures with an elongated MAD, leading to preferential and cooperative binding of cofilin.