Competition between Tropomyosin, Fimbrin, and ADF/Cofilin drives their sorting to distinct actin filament networks

  1. Jenna R Christensen
  2. Glen M Hocky
  3. Kaitlin E Homa
  4. Alisha N Morganthaler
  5. Sarah E Hitchcock-DeGregori
  6. Gregory A Voth
  7. David R Kovar  Is a corresponding author
  1. The University of Chicago, United States
  2. Rutgers University, United States

Abstract

The fission yeast actin cytoskeleton is an ideal, simplified system to investigate fundamental mechanisms behind cellular self-organization. By focusing on the stabilizing protein tropomyosin Cdc8, bundling protein fimbrin Fim1, and severing protein coffin Adf1, we examined how their pairwise and collective interactions with actin filaments regulate their activity and segregation to functionally diverse F-actin networks. Utilizing multi-color TIRF microscopy of in vitro reconstituted F-actin networks, we observed and characterized two distinct Cdc8 cables loading and spreading cooperatively on individual actin filaments. Furthermore, Cdc8, Fim1, and Adf1 all compete for association with F-actin by different mechanisms, and their cooperative association with actin filaments affects their ability to compete. Finally, competition between Fim1 and Adf1 for F-actin synergizes their activities, promoting rapid displacement of Cdc8 from a dense F-actin network. Our findings reveal that competitive and cooperative interactions between actin binding proteins help define their associations with different F-actin networks.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jenna R Christensen

    Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Glen M Hocky

    Department of Chemistry, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5637-0698
  3. Kaitlin E Homa

    Department of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Alisha N Morganthaler

    Department of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Sarah E Hitchcock-DeGregori

    Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Gregory A Voth

    Department of Chemistry, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. David R Kovar

    Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    For correspondence
    drkovar@uchicago.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5747-0949

Funding

National Institutes of Health (GM079265)

  • David R Kovar

American Cancer Society (RSG-11-126-01-CSM)

  • David R Kovar

National Science Foundation (DGE-1144082)

  • Jenna R Christensen

National Institutes of Health (T32 GM0071832)

  • Jenna R Christensen
  • Kaitlin E Homa

National Institutes of Health (F32 GM113415-01)

  • Glen M Hocky

National Institutes of Health (GM093965)

  • Sarah E Hitchcock-DeGregori

National Science Foundation (DMR-1420709)

  • Gregory A Voth
  • David R Kovar

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2017, Christensen 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

  • 3,831
    views
  • 794
    downloads
  • 77
    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. Jenna R Christensen
  2. Glen M Hocky
  3. Kaitlin E Homa
  4. Alisha N Morganthaler
  5. Sarah E Hitchcock-DeGregori
  6. Gregory A Voth
  7. David R Kovar
(2017)
Competition between Tropomyosin, Fimbrin, and ADF/Cofilin drives their sorting to distinct actin filament networks
eLife 6:e23152.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23152

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23152

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Bradley P Clarke, Alexia E Angelos ... Yi Ren
    Research Article

    In eukaryotes, RNAs transcribed by RNA Pol II are modified at the 5′ end with a 7-methylguanosine (m7G) cap, which is recognized by the nuclear cap binding complex (CBC). The CBC plays multiple important roles in mRNA metabolism, including transcription, splicing, polyadenylation, and export. It promotes mRNA export through direct interaction with a key mRNA export factor, ALYREF, which in turn links the TRanscription and EXport (TREX) complex to the 5′ end of mRNA. However, the molecular mechanism for CBC-mediated recruitment of the mRNA export machinery is not well understood. Here, we present the first structure of the CBC in complex with an mRNA export factor, ALYREF. The cryo-EM structure of CBC-ALYREF reveals that the RRM domain of ALYREF makes direct contact with both the NCBP1 and NCBP2 subunits of the CBC. Comparing CBC-ALYREF with other cellular complexes containing CBC and/or ALYREF components provides insights into the coordinated events during mRNA transcription, splicing, and export.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Julia Belyaeva, Matthias Elgeti
    Review Article

    Under physiological conditions, proteins continuously undergo structural fluctuations on different timescales. Some conformations are only sparsely populated, but still play a key role in protein function. Thus, meaningful structure–function frameworks must include structural ensembles rather than only the most populated protein conformations. To detail protein plasticity, modern structural biology combines complementary experimental and computational approaches. In this review, we survey available computational approaches that integrate sparse experimental data from electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy with molecular modeling techniques to derive all-atom structural models of rare protein conformations. We also propose strategies to increase the reliability and improve efficiency using deep learning approaches, thus advancing the field of integrative structural biology.