Differential spatial regulation and activation of integrin nanoclusters inside focal adhesions

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In recent years, it has become increasingly evident how beautifully intricate IAC are at the nanoscale. Studies like the one presented here that shed light on the precise inner organisation of IAC are thus quite important and relevant in order to obtain a better in-depth understanding of IAC functioning and the contribution of different integrin subtypes to cell adhesive and mechanotransductive processes.

Interestingly, the authors found a distinct localisation of α5β1 and αVβ3 integrin nanoclusters within focal adhesion of human fibroblasts, with α5β1 integrin nanoclusters being at the periphery of IAC and αVβ3 integrin nanoclusters randomly distributed. Furthermore, a surprisingly high percentage of inactive integrins within IAC and relatively low spatial integrin colocalisation with adaptor proteins has been shown.

Strengths:

This is a very thoroughly performed STORM-based assessment of the nanodistribution of α5β1 and αVβ3 nanoclusters within IAC (and outside). The image quality is outstanding, and the authors have meticulously executed the experiments and the image analyses.

Weaknesses:

The only weakness is maybe that the manuscript remains descriptive. However, the high quality of the "description" of the nano-organisation of IAC by this scrupulous study is really important to better understand the inner workings of IAC. It provides a very solid foundation to look deeper into the (patho)physiological implications of this organisation, see recommendations (which are rather suggestions in this case).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, dual-color super-resolution microscopy analysis was performed to study the co-operation between integrins and focal adhesion proteins in human fibroblast cells. The study focused on two integrins which have been previously found to be mainly responsible for focal adhesions, namely α5β1 and αvβ3.

Specifically, the study tried to shed light on the nanoclustering of integrins in focal adhesions.

In the current study, more integrin nanoclusters were observed in focal adhesions compared to other cell-matrix adhesion structures. The study revealed that both α5β1 and αvβ3 form nanoclusters, and those appear segregated from each other. While αvβ3 nanoclusters organize randomly inside focal adhesions regardless of their activation state, α5β1 nanoclusters, and particularly the nanoclusters containing β1-integrin in active conformation, preferentially organized at the edges of focal adhesions. The nanoclusters formed by each integrin were similar in size.

Cytoplasmic adapter proteins appeared less in nanocluster assemblies, suggesting that integrin nanoclusters are also forming without the studied cytoplasmic adapter proteins (talin, vinculin, paxillin). Active integrins were identified with the help of conformation-specific antibodies, and this enabled us to study the colocalization between integrins and their cytoplasmic adapter proteins. This analysis revealed that activated integrins are strongly engaged with adapter proteins

Strengths:

The study stems from the thorough computational modelling of the nanoclusters, which enables quantification of the behavior of the clusters, including their mesoscale distribution.

The study strengthens the view that α5β1 and αvβ3 have specific functions in focal adhesions, α5β1 nanoclusters localizing preferentially on focal adhesion edges. The study also revealed that nanoclusters localized at the edges of focal adhesion were enriched for talin and paxillin but not for vinculin.

Analysis of adaptor protein nanoclusters (paxillin, talin, and vinculin) revealed that all adapter protein nanoclusters studied here close to active β1 nanoclusters are enriched on the focal adhesion edge region, whereas integrin adaptor nanoclusters far from active β1 appear to be more uniformly distributed.

Importantly, the current study suggests that integrin subtype-specific nanoclusters are not only present at an early stage of adhesion formation, but integrin nanoclusters remain segregated from each other also in mature focal adhesions, maintaining their sizes and number of molecules.

Interestingly, the study revealed that selected cytoplasmic adaptors (paxillin, talin, and vinculin), also form nanoclusters of similar size and number of single molecule localizations as the integrins, regardless of whether they locate inside or outside focal adhesions. The adapter nanoclusters are enriched in the focal adhesion "belt", colocalizing with the active α5β1 integrin nanoclusters.

Weaknesses:

The current study is highly dependent on the antibodies. It is possible that antibodies containing two binding sites for antigen influence the nanoscale organization (and also activation) of the receptors. Control experiments to study the possible contribution of antibodies to the measured outcome should be performed to verify the main findings. One possible approach could be to use fluorescently tagged integrins available. Alternatively, integrins (or adapter proteins) could be tagged with a small ligand and detected using a monovalent binder.

Only a limited number of integrin adapter proteins were investigated. Given the high number of identified adapter proteins, this is an understandable choice. However, it would be fascinating to understand if the nanoclusters of inactive integrins are dominantly bound with a certain adapter protein, such as tensin.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In their study, the authors reveal using dual-color super-resolution STORM microscopy modality and immunolabeling in fixed adherent cells, that β1 and β3 integrins as well as adaptors (paxillin, talin and vinculin) are all organized in nanoclusters of similar size (50nm) and molecular density (20 copy number) inside FAs but also outside. Using activity-specific immunolabeling of β1 and β3 integrins, they revealed that active integrin subpopulations were both clustered but in distinct exclusive nano-aggregates in agreement with Spiess et al. (2018). Once more, the "active" integrin nanoclusters displayed similar properties in terms of size and molecular density, suggesting that molecular organization in nanoclusters is an intrinsic property of integrins in plasma membrane multimerizing independently of their location (inside or outside FAs), their level of activation, or their connection to the cytoskeleton. Then the authors followed up by analyzing at the mesoscale how these "universal" nanoclustered adhesive units are distributed spatially. Inspecting the surface density of nanoclusters revealed that the density of integrin nanoclusters in FAs was 5x larger, compared to integrin nanoclusters outside adhesions. Interestingly, whereas the density of total integrin nanoclusters was 2-4x larger than adaptor nanoclusters, the density of "active" integrin nanoclusters stoichiometrically matches that of talin and vinculin nanoclusters, and was slightly outnumbered by paxillin nanoclusters. These findings suggest that inside FAs, among the total number of integrin nanoclusters, the subset of "active" integrin nanoclusters could be engaged with "adaptor" nanoclusters on a 1:1 ratio. Using analysis of the nearest neighbor distance (NND) between distinct integrin clusters and each of the adaptors, the authors report that they found negligible spatial colocalization of integrins with these adaptor proteins and that spatial segregation is essentially determined by the density of nanoclusters within the FAs. As authors reported that α5β1 and αvβ3 do not intermix at the nanoscale, the authors finally highlighted how α5β1 and αvβ3 distinct nanoclusters are differently organized and segregated inside FAs. Adapting the NND analysis in order to inspect how far the nanoclusters are from the edges of FAs they are located in, authors revealed that α5β1 but not αvβ3 integrin nanoclusters are enriched on FA edges and that similar FA edge-enriched distribution for "active" α5β1 and adaptor protein nanoclusters was found for talin and paxillin but not vinculin. The latter results suggest that FA edges could constitute multiprotein hubs for enhanced colocalization and activation for α5β1 integrin nanoclusters and adaptors such as talin and paxillin. Unfortunately NND analysis could not confirm this enhanced colocalization hypothesis.

General Assessment:

While the study presents some valuable findings, it reads currently as a compilation of intriguing but preliminary observations derived primarily from a single methodology (dual-color STORM and DBSCAN clustering analysis). As the initial findings often lack confirmation through additional data analysis (such as the NND analysis the authors used), there's a critical necessity to bolster the methodological approach. This should involve replicating the main findings using alternative single-molecule super-resolution techniques (such as quantitative DNA-PAINT) or employing different clustering analytical tools (such as voronoi-tessellation). Furthermore, the manuscript feels incomplete, focusing solely on describing molecular organization without offering substantial insights into how these observations correlate with the regulation, activation, and functionality of integrins at the cellular level.

The manuscript presents extensive datasets and utilizes methodologies in which the investigators demonstrate expertise. Nevertheless, there's uncertainty regarding the novelty and broad appeal of the findings. For instance, the observation of integrin nanoclustering has been previously reported in several publications (e.g., Changede et al., Dev Cell 2015; Spiess et al., JCB 2018; Fujiwara et al., JCB 2023). Similarly, the accumulation of specific proteins at the periphery of FAs has been documented elsewhere (e.g., Sun et al., NCB 2016; Stubb et al., NatComm 2019; Nunes-Vicente TCB 2023), as well as the differential dynamic organization of α5β1 and αvβ3 integrins inside FAs (e.g., Rossier et al., NCB 2012). Beyond the universal organization of adhesive proteins, there's a need to identify novel insights that significantly advance the field. One potential avenue could involve pinpointing the molecular determinant controlling the FA edge enrichment of active α5β1 integrins and talin nanoclusters. For instance, could there be an interplay between α5β1 and αvβ3 integrin nanoclusters visible on one's organisation when suppressing the other using deletion (KO) or depletion (SiRNA)? Also, could KANK, which also exhibits enrichment and regulates talin activity (e.g., Sun et al., NCB 2016), play a role in this process? Identifying the molecular players that regulate even partially the mesoscale organization of nanoclusters of proteins would really benefit the breadth of this manuscript.

Echoing the previous concern, the manuscript described a novel and rather surprising finding related to molecular clustering of adhesion proteins. Indeed, the fact that nanoclusters exhibit uniform size and molecular density regardless of the protein type, location, or activation level is indeed surprising and raises many questions about the methodology used to assess molecular clustering. I feel that the description and characterization of integrin nanoclusters appear incomplete and need to be expanded by comparing different analytical strategies for protein clustering. Furthermore, a lack of the manuscript in its actual form concerns the quantification of integrin numbers inside the observed nanoclusters. I agree that the path from optical microscopy to protein stoichiometry quantification is hard and full of drawbacks. But the authors do not fully address these issues that are extremely important when discussing protein nanoclustering. This quantitative aspect should be discussed.

First, it is crucial for the authors to carefully examine and discuss in their manuscript whether there are any potential biases or limitations in the experimental techniques (dual-color STORM) or data analysis methods employed (DBSCAN). Second, the authors did not in the current manuscript, but should provide control samples to demonstrate the sensitivity and dynamic range of their experimental strategy.

In STORM images displayed in Figure S1, the authors highlighted localization clusters detected by DBSCAN as a signature for integrin nanoclusters. But the authors do not discuss the localization spots that were not detected by DBSCAN. Could they be individual integrins? And if so, they should also be considered as useful information? This brings me to another related technical question about how DBSCAN handles the case where fluorescent molecules are blinking. This is important as multiple emissions by a single fluorophore could be detected as a nanocluster of several molecules where it would be an artefact due to the photophysics of the fluorophore. Could the authors comment on these points?

Also, using isolated and stochastically physisorbed fluorophores (Ab coupled with activator /reporter pairs used in this study) on glass helped define the signature in STORM of a single isolated molecule. To obtain the signature of clustered fluorophores, the authors could use anti-donkey antibodies to cross-link those STORM-specifically labeled Ab as a means to artificially obtain clustered fluorophores. Ultimately, to avoid the bias effect of the glass surfaces on the photophysics of fluorophores and be in the same imaging conditions as for the described nanoclusters, the authors should use model systems composed of multimers of GFP vs. single GFP, immunolabeled with a GFP-binding monoclonal antibody. This will permit evaluation of the cluster signature obtained with DBSCAN analysis of STORM data for single vs. multimers of known stoichiometry. This would constitute an undisputable molecular stoichiometry ruler.

Due to the surprising finding of the nanoclusters' "universality", it is imperative for the authors to validate the findings through complementary methodologies and analytical tools. This should involve replication of results using alternative super-resolution techniques (quantitative DNA-PAINT) and exploring different clustering algorithms (Voronoï-Tesselation) to ensure the robustness and reliability of the observations.

Author response:

As a short response to the public reviews, we would like to outline the following planned revisions:

(1) Address the antibody concerns as indicated by reviewer 1

(2) Assess the role of tensin (and possibly KANK), as suggested by reviewers 2 and 3, respectively.

(3) Validate our main experimental findings using alternative super-resolution approaches, including STED to avoid potential blinking artefacts associated to standard STORM, and most possibly DNA-PAINT as a more quantitative technique, as suggested by reviewer 3.

(4) Implement alternative analytical strategies to DBSCAN, including Voronoi tessellation as suggested by reviewer 3.

(5) Expanded discussion on the main findings of our work and biological significance.