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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Mohan K Balasubramanian, University of Warwick, United Kingdom

Publication history

  1. Received: November 10, 2016
  2. Accepted: March 9, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 10, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: April 25, 2017 (version 2)

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

  • 3,269
    Page views
  • 743
    Downloads
  • 45
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Tianzhi Li, Qiqi Cheng ... Cong Ma
    Research Article

    Exocytosis of secretory vesicles requires the soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor attachment protein receptor (SNARE) proteins and small GTPase Rabs. As a Rab3/Rab27 effector protein on secretory vesicles, Rabphilin 3A was implicated to interact with SNAP-25 to regulate vesicle exocytosis in neurons and neuroendocrine cells, yet the underlying mechanism remains unclear. In this study, we have characterized the physiologically relevant binding sites between Rabphilin 3A and SNAP-25. We found that an intramolecular interplay between the N-terminal Rab-binding domain and C-terminal C2AB domain enables Rabphilin 3A to strongly bind the SNAP-25 N-peptide region via its C2B bottom α-helix. Disruption of this interaction significantly impaired docking and fusion of vesicles with the plasma membrane in rat PC12 cells. In addition, we found that this interaction allows Rabphilin 3A to accelerate SNARE complex assembly. Furthermore, we revealed that this interaction accelerates SNARE complex assembly via inducing a conformational switch from random coils to α-helical structure in the SNAP-25 SNARE motif. Altogether, our data suggest that the promotion of SNARE complex assembly by binding the C2B bottom α-helix of Rabphilin 3A to the N-peptide of SNAP-25 underlies a pre-fusion function of Rabphilin 3A in vesicle exocytosis.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Lena Maria Muckenfuss, Anabel Carmen Migenda Herranz ... Martin Jinek
    Research Article Updated

    3′ end formation of most eukaryotic mRNAs is dependent on the assembly of a ~1.5 MDa multiprotein complex, that catalyzes the coupled reaction of pre-mRNA cleavage and polyadenylation. In mammals, the cleavage and polyadenylation specificity factor (CPSF) constitutes the core of the 3′ end processing machinery onto which the remaining factors, including cleavage stimulation factor (CstF) and poly(A) polymerase (PAP), assemble. These interactions are mediated by Fip1, a CPSF subunit characterized by high degree of intrinsic disorder. Here, we report two crystal structures revealing the interactions of human Fip1 (hFip1) with CPSF30 and CstF77. We demonstrate that CPSF contains two copies of hFip1, each binding to the zinc finger (ZF) domains 4 and 5 of CPSF30. Using polyadenylation assays we show that the two hFip1 copies are functionally redundant in recruiting one copy of PAP, thereby increasing the processivity of RNA polyadenylation. We further show that the interaction between hFip1 and CstF77 is mediated via a short motif in the N-terminal ‘acidic’ region of hFip1. In turn, CstF77 competitively inhibits CPSF-dependent PAP recruitment and 3′ polyadenylation. Taken together, these results provide a structural basis for the multivalent scaffolding and regulatory functions of hFip1 in 3′ end processing.