Loss of Ena/VASP interferes with lamellipodium architecture, motility and integrin-dependent adhesion

  1. Julia Damiano- Guercio
  2. Laëtitia Kurzawa
  3. Jan Mueller
  4. Georgi Dimchev
  5. Matthias Schaks
  6. Maria Nemethova
  7. Thomas Pokrant
  8. Stefan Brühmann
  9. Joern Linkner
  10. Laurent Blanchoin
  11. Michael Sixt
  12. Klemens Rottner
  13. Jan Faix  Is a corresponding author
  1. Hannover Medical School, Germany
  2. CytoMorphoLab, France
  3. Institute of Science and Technology Austria (IST Austria), Austria
  4. Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany
  5. Interdisciplinary Research Institute Grenoble, France

Abstract

Cell migration entails networks and bundles of actin filaments termed lamellipodia and microspikes or filopodia, respectively, as well as focal adhesions, all of which recruit Ena/VASP family members hitherto thought to antagonize efficient cell motility. However, we find these proteins to act as positive regulators of migration in different murine cell lines. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated loss of Ena/VASP proteins reduced lamellipodial actin assembly and perturbed lamellipodial architecture, as evidenced by changed network geometry as well as reduction of filament length and number that was accompanied by abnormal Arp2/3 complex and heterodimeric capping protein accumulation. Loss of Ena/VASP function also abolished the formation of microspikes normally embedded in lamellipodia, but not of filopodia capable of emanating without lamellipodia. Ena/VASP-deficiency also impaired integrin-mediated adhesion accompanied by reduced traction forces exerted through these structures. Our data thus uncover novel Ena/VASP functions of these actin polymerases that are fully consistent with their promotion of cell migration.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for all Figures.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Julia Damiano- Guercio

    Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Laëtitia Kurzawa

    Integrative Structural and Cellular Biology Department, CytoMorphoLab, Grenoble, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jan Mueller

    Institute of Science and Technology Austria (IST Austria), Klosterneuburg, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Georgi Dimchev

    Division of Molecular Cell Biology, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Matthias Schaks

    Division of Molecular Cell Biology, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Maria Nemethova

    Institute of Science and Technology Austria (IST Austria), Klosterneuburg, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Thomas Pokrant

    Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Stefan Brühmann

    Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Joern Linkner

    Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Laurent Blanchoin

    Laboratoire de Physiologie Cellulaire & Végétale, Interdisciplinary Research Institute Grenoble, Grenoble, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8146-9254
  11. Michael Sixt

    Institute of Science and Technology Austria (IST Austria), Klosterneuburg, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6620-9179
  12. Klemens Rottner

    Zoological Institute - Division of Molecular Cell Biology, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4244-4198
  13. Jan Faix

    Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
    For correspondence
    faix.jan@mh-hannover.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1803-9192

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (FA 330/11-1)

  • Jan Faix

H2020 European Research Council (AAA 741773)

  • Laurent Blanchoin

H2020 European Research Council (CoG 724373)

  • Michael Sixt

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (RO2414/5-1)

  • Klemens Rottner

Technische Universität Braunschweig (GRK2223/1)

  • Klemens Rottner

Austrian Science Fund

  • Michael Sixt

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

Copyright

© 2020, Damiano- Guercio 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

  • 3,561
    views
  • 564
    downloads
  • 87
    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. Julia Damiano- Guercio
  2. Laëtitia Kurzawa
  3. Jan Mueller
  4. Georgi Dimchev
  5. Matthias Schaks
  6. Maria Nemethova
  7. Thomas Pokrant
  8. Stefan Brühmann
  9. Joern Linkner
  10. Laurent Blanchoin
  11. Michael Sixt
  12. Klemens Rottner
  13. Jan Faix
(2020)
Loss of Ena/VASP interferes with lamellipodium architecture, motility and integrin-dependent adhesion
eLife 9:e55351.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55351

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55351

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Tamás Visnovitz, Dorina Lenzinger ... Edit I Buzas
    Short Report

    Recent studies showed an unexpected complexity of extracellular vesicle (EV) biogenesis pathways. We previously found evidence that human colorectal cancer cells in vivo release large multivesicular body-like structures en bloc. Here, we tested whether this large EV type is unique to colorectal cancer cells. We found that all cell types we studied (including different cell lines and cells in their original tissue environment) released multivesicular large EVs (MV-lEVs). We also demonstrated that upon spontaneous rupture of the limiting membrane of the MV-lEVs, their intraluminal vesicles (ILVs) escaped to the extracellular environment by a ‘torn bag mechanism’. We proved that the MV-lEVs were released by ectocytosis of amphisomes (hence, we termed them amphiectosomes). Both ILVs of amphiectosomes and small EVs separated from conditioned media were either exclusively CD63 or LC3B positive. According to our model, upon fusion of multivesicular bodies with autophagosomes, fragments of the autophagosomal inner membrane curl up to form LC3B positive ILVs of amphisomes, while CD63 positive small EVs are of multivesicular body origin. Our data suggest a novel common release mechanism for small EVs, distinct from the exocytosis of multivesicular bodies or amphisomes, as well as the small ectosome release pathway.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Adam D Longhurst, Kyle Wang ... David P Toczyski
    Tools and Resources

    Progression through the G1 phase of the cell cycle is the most highly regulated step in cellular division. We employed a chemogenetic approach to discover novel cellular networks that regulate cell cycle progression. This approach uncovered functional clusters of genes that altered sensitivity of cells to inhibitors of the G1/S transition. Mutation of components of the Polycomb Repressor Complex 2 rescued proliferation inhibition caused by the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib, but not to inhibitors of S phase or mitosis. In addition to its core catalytic subunits, mutation of the PRC2.1 accessory protein MTF2, but not the PRC2.2 protein JARID2, rendered cells resistant to palbociclib treatment. We found that PRC2.1 (MTF2), but not PRC2.2 (JARID2), was critical for promoting H3K27me3 deposition at CpG islands genome-wide and in promoters. This included the CpG islands in the promoter of the CDK4/6 cyclins CCND1 and CCND2, and loss of MTF2 lead to upregulation of both CCND1 and CCND2. Our results demonstrate a role for PRC2.1, but not PRC2.2, in antagonizing G1 progression in a diversity of cell linages, including chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), breast cancer, and immortalized cell lines.