1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
Download icon

Structural basis of αE-catenin-F-actin catch bond behavior

  1. Xiao-Ping Xu
  2. Sabine Pokutta
  3. Megan Torres
  4. Mark F Swift
  5. Dorit Hanein  Is a corresponding author
  6. Niels Volkmann  Is a corresponding author
  7. William I Weis  Is a corresponding author
  1. Scintillon Institute, United States
  2. Stanford University, United States
  3. Stanford University School of Medicine, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 0
  • Views 294
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2020;9:e60878 doi: 10.7554/eLife.60878

Abstract

Cell-cell and cell-matrix junctions transmit mechanical forces during tissue morphogenesis and homeostasis. α-Catenin links cell-cell adhesion complexes to the actin cytoskeleton, and mechanical load strengthens its binding to F-actin in a direction-sensitive manner. Specifically, optical trap experiments revealed that force promotes a transition between weak and strong actin-bound states. Here, we describe the cryo-electron microscopy structure of the F-actin-bound αE-catenin actin-binding domain, which in solution forms a 5-helix bundle. In the actin-bound structure, the first helix of the bundle dissociates and the remaining four helices and connecting loops rearrange to form the interface with actin. Deletion of the first helix produces strong actin binding in the absence of force, suggesting that the actin-bound structure corresponds to the strong state. Our analysis explains how mechanical force applied to αE-catenin or its homolog vinculin favors the strongly bound state, and the dependence of catch bond strength on the direction of applied force.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Xiao-Ping Xu

    Scintillon Institute, Scintillon Institute, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Sabine Pokutta

    Department of Structural Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Megan Torres

    Structural Biology and Molecular & Cellular Physiology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Mark F Swift

    Scintillon Institute, Scintillon Institute, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Dorit Hanein

    Scintillon Institute, Scintillon Institute, San Diego, United States
    For correspondence
    dorit@scintillon.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6072-4946
  6. Niels Volkmann

    Scintillon Institute, Scintillon Institute, San Diego, United States
    For correspondence
    niels@sbpdiscovery.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. William I Weis

    Departments of Structural Biology and of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    weis@stanford.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5583-6150

Funding

National Institutes of Health (GM118326)

  • Dorit Hanein
  • Niels Volkmann
  • William I Weis

National Institutes of Health (GM131747)

  • William I Weis

National Institutes of Health (S10-OD012372)

  • Dorit Hanein

National Institutes of Health (S10-OD026926)

  • Dorit Hanein

Pew Charitable Trusts (864K625)

  • Dorit Hanein

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Christopher P Hill, University of Utah School of Medicine, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: July 9, 2020
  2. Accepted: September 9, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 11, 2020 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2020, Xu 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

  • 294
    Page views
  • 73
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

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

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)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Roman O Fedoryshchak et al.
    Research Article

    PPP-family phosphatases such as PP1 have little intrinsic specificity. Cofactors can target PP1 to substrates or subcellular locations, but it remains unclear how they might confer sequence-specificity on PP1. The cytoskeletal regulator Phactr1 is a neuronally-enriched PP1 cofactor that is controlled by G-actin. Structural analysis showed that Phactr1 binding remodels PP1's hydrophobic groove, creating a new composite surface adjacent to the catalytic site. Using phosphoproteomics, we identified mouse fibroblast and neuronal Phactr1/PP1 substrates, which include cytoskeletal components and regulators. We determined high-resolution structures of Phactr1/PP1 bound to the dephosphorylated forms of its substrates IRSp53 and spectrin aII. Inversion of the phosphate in these holoenzyme-product complexes supports the proposed PPP-family catalytic mechanism. Substrate sequences C-terminal to the dephosphorylation site make intimate contacts with the composite Phactr1/PP1 surface, which are required for efficient dephosphorylation. Sequence specificity explains why Phactr1/PP1 exhibits orders-of-magnitude enhanced reactivity towards its substrates, compared to apo-PP1 or other PP1 holoenzymes.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Lin Mei et al.
    Research Article

    The actin cytoskeleton mediates mechanical coupling between cells and their tissue microenvironments. The architecture and composition of actin networks are modulated by force, but it is unclear how interactions between actin filaments (F-actin) and associated proteins are mechanically regulated. Here, we employ both optical trapping and biochemical reconstitution with myosin motor proteins to show single piconewton forces applied solely to F-actin enhance binding by the human version of the essential cell-cell adhesion protein αE-catenin, but not its homolog vinculin. Cryo-electron microscopy structures of both proteins bound to F-actin reveal unique rearrangements that facilitate their flexible C-termini refolding to engage distinct interfaces. Truncating α-catenin's C-terminus eliminates force-activated F-actin binding, and addition of this motif to vinculin confers force-activated binding, demonstrating that α-catenin's C-terminus is a modular detector of F-actin tension. Our studies establish that piconewton force on F-actin can enhance partner binding, which we propose mechanically regulates cellular adhesion through a-catenin.