A biochemical mechanism for Stu2/XMAP215-family microtubule polymerases

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study by Gangadharan and colleagues provides significant progress towards a quantitative biochemical mechanism for Stu2 polymerase activity. A key conceptual advance is the novel application of an enzyme-like model, initially developed for the actin polymerase Ena/VASP, to Stu2.

New refined affinity measurements for a Stu2 TOG domain using Bio-layer interferometry show more than an order of magnitude higher affinity of TOG domains to tubulin compared to previously published reports.

The findings reinforce the "concentrating reactants" or, more specifically, for TOG-domain proteins, the "tubulin-shuttling antenna" model, compared to the "polarized unfurling" model, a more speculative structural hypothesis.

The manuscript builds upon a series of previous manuscripts that showcase the profound intellectual engagement with microtubule polymerization mechanisms by TOG-domain proteins from the Rice lab, a thought leader in microtubule polymerization for over a decade.

Minor remarks:

(1) A major new experimental finding of this paper is the affinity of TOG domains, which is more than an order of magnitude lower (10 nM) than previous measurements from the same lab (~200 nM). The authors attribute this change to ionic strength differences between buffer conditions, citing the lab's previous work (Ayaz et al., 2014). This argument left me contemplating what the buffer conditions are in both experiments, and I wonder if other readers would feel the same. After going down the rabbit hole, I believe the difference in ionic strength is ~2.3 fold, and at least on the back of my envelope, this works out beautifully with the measured differences in affinities. A short version of this argument may strengthen the manuscript.

(2) I am wondering if there may be an alternative explanation to tubulin binding by TOG being the kinetically rate-limiting step for polymerase function:

TOG + Tubulin ⇌ TOG:Tubulin (fast binding rate, high-affinity binding)
TOG:Tubulin + MT_end → TOG:MT (tubulin is incorporated into MT, fast transfer rate)
The binding rate is 3/s, and the transfer rate is 5/s.

I was wondering if the following step should be considered, which involves a conformational change of tubulin (e.g., straightening) TOG:MT → TOG + MT (rate-limiting straightening and unbinding of TOG from the lattice).

Presumably, the affinity of TOGs for straight tubulin is practically zero for the purpose of this discussion, as there is no lattice binding, which means unbinding is likely very rapid; however, straightening may be the rate-limiting factor here.

In theory, straightening should also be rapid; however, we lack measurements of how fast or slow this step occurs within the context of a TOG domain, which presumably skews the process towards curved tubulin.

A hypothetical Stu2, when bound to the microtubule end and with the TOG domain not disengaged from tubulin, would not permit the processivity of that molecule or the binding of a new molecule.
To emphasize the importance of unbinding, when it is not efficient, as reported for the T238 mutant that results in Stu2 lattice binding (Geyer et al., 2018), the polymerase becomes inefficient.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript from the Rice lab by Gangadharan et al. investigates the polymerization mechanism of the yeast microtubule polymerase Stu2. The lab has published a number of articles demonstrating the structural basis by which the two TOG domains of Stu2 each bind free tubulin heterodimers, and has developed a tethered polymerization model by which the TOG domains drive polymerization by shuttling those tubulin subunits onto the microtubule plus end. A second model was proposed by Nithianantham et al. (eLife, 2018) based on a closed-to-open transitional state in which Stu2 unfurls and loads two longitudinally associated tubulin heterodimers onto the microtubule plus end. While the second model is not directly tested, the current work aims to further characterize/model the tethered polymerization model using a kinetic framework developed by Breitsprecher et al. for Ena/VASP actin polymerization activity, using a model that is enzymatic (EMBO J., 2011). The general architecture and function of Ena/VASP on actin polymerization versus Stu2 on microtubule polymerization is a reasonable relation and hits upon, as the authors note, potential convergent mechanistic evolution across distinct cytoskeletal networks. The model effectively treats tubulin as the substrate, and the polymerized microtubule plus end as the product. If Stu2 is "enzymatic" in this framework, the model predicts it would behave with Michaelis-Menten kinetics, that there would a Vmax, and polymerase activity would either be "affinity limited" by TOG:tubulin affinity (KD) and/or "kinetically limited" by TOG:tubulin association (Kon) and transfer of tubulin to the microtubule plus end (Kt). The authors find that the Brietsprecher model works well for Stu2 activity, and that Stu2 best aligns with a "kinetically limited" model. The work is interesting and adds to the growing elucidation of the Stu2 microtubule polymerase model. While yeast microtubule polymerases are somewhat distinct in their architecture, there is significant overlap that findings from the manuscript can be utilized to inform the mechanisms of larger, more complex microtubule polymerases such as human ch-TOG.

Strengths:

The manuscript invokes the enzymatic model of Breitsprecher et al. used for Ena/VASP and conducts an elegant series of (mostly established) experiments to determine whether Stu2 microtubule polymerase activity aligns with the model, which they conclude does align, supported by the data/results obtained.

Weaknesses:

The authors used biolayer interferometry to measure TOG:tubulin affinity. The affinities obtained were significantly higher than the lab obtained in an earlier publication using analytical ultracentrifugation. While differences in buffer and salt conditions may underlie these differences, additional runs using comparable buffer systems, or the use of a third independent assay to measure affinities, would have added rigor.

The discussion could be expanded to better compare and contrast the results with both existing polymerase models introduced in the introduction, as well as expanded to look at reversible enzymatic activity (microtubule depolymerization at low to zero tubulin concentrations) and microtubule plus versus minus end activity.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study by Gangadharan and colleagues seeks to establish a quantitative biochemical model for the microtubule polymerase activity of Stu2. Stu2 is the budding yeast member of the XMAP215 protein family, which is broadly conserved across eukaryotes. XMAP215 proteins play a wide variety of important roles in cells, and these are attributed to effects on microtubule dynamics. Many studies over the last ~20 years have shown that XMA215 proteins selectively associate with microtubule ends, where they increase rates of microtubule assembly and disassembly. More recently, structural biology and biochemical studies by the authors and other groups have shown that the multiple TOG domains on XMAP215 proteins are tubulin-binding domains that selectively bind to curved tubulin, which is present in solution and at microtubule ends, but not to straight tubulin which is present in the walls of the microtubule lattice. This has led to the general model that XMAP215 proteins promote polymerization by delivering soluble tubulin to the growing plus end, and two distinct models have been proposed to explain the mechanism. The 'concentrating reactants' model proposed previously by the authors suggests that TOG domains grab hold of tubulin in solution and concentrate at the microtubule end. The 'polarized unfurling' model proposed by the Al Bassam lab suggests that XMAP215 delivers multiple tubulins to the end, using a step-wise mechanism involving different roles for each TOG domain. The current study seeks to improve our understanding of the mechanism by developing a quantitative model to explain the binding and release of tubulins, the number of Stu2 molecules at the end, and the overall rate of tubulin addition. The authors accomplish this goal using new experimental data. The final model fills in new details of the mechanism. The authors draw a comparison between Stu2 and the actin polymerase, which bears similarity to Ena/VASP, and suggest a convergent strategy for cytoskeletal polymerases.

Strengths:

This is a focused and clearly written study that incorporates prior knowledge of XMAP215 and draws inspiration from the actin field. The data are clear and convincing, and the study accomplishes its goal of generating a new, quantitative model for Stu2. The model will be important for microtubule researchers to predict and test key points for altering XMAP215 activity across different organisms and potentially for different tubulin substrates. The comparison to Ena/VASP may also inspire similar comparisons across other microtubule and actin regulators, which could lead to new insights across the cytoskeletal fields.

Weaknesses:

The study is without major weaknesses, but there are several minor weaknesses worth noting. One is that the final model provides new details regarding the Stu2 mechanism, but does not provide a major new advance in our understanding of how the polymerase works. For example, the discussion does not clearly argue for whether the new results and model rule out either of the prior models. This appears consistent with the 'concentrating reactants' model, but does it clearly rule out the 'polarized unfurling' model? A second minor weakness is that the comparison to Ena/VASP is not developed at a deep level based on the final model. I found these ideas exciting and want more critical consideration here, but perhaps it is better suited for a commentary piece to follow.