Recognition of the Nucleotide-Dependent Feature Facilitates the Microtubule End-Binding of MCAK

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Major concerns:

1. Is the direct binding of MCAK to the microtubule cap important for its in vivo function?

a. The authors claim that their "study provides mechanistic insights into understanding the end-binding mechanism of MCAK". I respectfully disagree. My concern is that the paper offers limited insights into the physiological significance of direct end-binding for MCAK activity, even in vitro. The authors estimate that in the absence of other proteins in vitro, ~95% of MCAK molecules arrive at the tip by direct binding in the presence of ~ physiological ATP concentration (1 mM). In cells, however, the major end-binding pathway may be mediated by EB, with the direct binding pathway contributing little to none. This is a reasonable concern because the apparent dissociation constant measured by the authors shows that MCAK binding to microtubules in the presence of ATP is very weak (69 uM). This concern should be addressed by 1) calculating relative contributions of direct and EB-dependent pathways based on the affinities measured in this and other published papers and estimated intracellular concentrations. Although there are many unknowns about these interactions in cells, a modeling-based analysis may be revealing. 2) the recapitulation of these pathways using purifying proteins in vitro is also feasible. Ideally, some direct evidence should be provided, e.g. based on MCAK function-separating mutants (GDP-Pi tubulin binding vs. catalytic activity at the curled protofilaments) that contribution from the direct binding of MCAK to microtubule cap in EB presence is significant.

b. As mentioned in the Discussion, preferential MCAK binding to tubulins near the MT tip may enhance MCAK targeting of terminal tubulins AFTER the MCAK has been "delivered" to the distal cap via the EB-dependent mechanism. This is a different targeting mechanism than the direct MCAK-binding. However, the measured binding affinity between MCAK and GMPCPP tubulins is so weak (69 uM), that this effect is also unlikely to have any impact because the binding events between MCAK and microtubule should be extremely rare. Without hard evidence, the arguments for this enhancement are very speculative.

2. The authors do not provide sufficient justification and explanation for their investigation of the effects of different nucleotides in MCAK binding affinity. A clear summary of the nucleotide-dependent function of MCAK (introduction with references to prior affinity measurements and corresponding MCAK affinities), the justifications for this investigation, and what has been learned from using different nucleotides (discussion) should be provided. My take on these results is that by far the strongest effect on microtubule wall and tip binding is achieved by adding any adenosine, whereas differences between different nucleotides are relatively minor. Was this expected? What can be learned from the apparent similarity between ATP and AMPPNP effects in some assays (Fig 1E, 4C, etc) but not others (Fig 1D,F, etc)?

3. It is not clear why the authors decided to use these specific mutant MCAK proteins to advance their arguments about the importance of direct tip binding. Both mutants are enzymatically inactive. Both show roughly similar tip interactions, with some (minor) differences. Without a clear understanding of what these mutants represent, the provided interpretations of the corresponding results are not convincing.

4. GMPCPP microtubules are used in the current study to represent normal dynamic microtubule ends, based on some published studies. However, there is no consensus in the field regarding the structure of growing vs. GMPCPP-stabilized microtubule ends, which additionally may be sensitive to specific experimental conditions (buffers, temperature, age of microtubules, etc). To strengthen the authors' argument, Taxol-stabilized microtubules should be used as a control to test if the effects are specific. Additionally, the authors should consider the possibility that stronger MCAK binding to the ends of different types of microtubules may reflect MCAK-dependent depolymerization events on a very small scale (several tubulin rows). These nano-scale changes to tubulins and the microtubule end may lead to the accumulation of small tubulin-MCAK aggregates, as is seen with other MAPs and slowly depolymerizing microtubules. These effects for MCAK may also depend on specific nucleotides, further complicating the interpretation. This possibility should be addressed because it provides a different interpretation than presented in the manuscript.

5. It would be helpful if the authors provided microtubule polymerization rates and catastrophe frequencies for assays with dynamic microtubules and MCAK in the presence of different nucleotides. The video recordings of microtubules under these conditions are already available to the authors, so it should not be difficult to provide these quantifications. They may reveal that microtubule ends are different (or not) under the examined conditions. It would also help to increase the overall credibility of this study by providing data that are easy to compare between different labs.

6. Are there other published studies that report MCAK binding affinity to microtubules? I find it quite surprising that the authors have reported the apparent dissociation constant for MCAK as 1mM. Such a high Kd value suggests no interaction under normal conditions, given that the intracellular concentrations of most proteins are orders of magnitude lower. If this information is inaccurate, it raises questions about the accuracy of other quantifications in the study.

7. Experimental and data analysis techniques are described superficially, and in some cases, only references to the prior work by others are provided. More direct evidence for these techniques and the corresponding controls should be provided.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
In this manuscript, Chen et al. investigate the localization of microtubule kinesin-13 MCAK to the microtubule ends. MCAK is a prominent microtubule depolymerase whose molecular mechanisms of action have been extensively studied by a number of labs over the last ~twenty years. Here, the authors use single-molecule approaches to investigate the precise localization of MCAK on growing microtubules and conclude that MCAK preferentially binds to a GDP-Pi-tubulin portion of the microtubule end. The conclusions are speculative and not well substantiated by the data, making the impact of the study in its current form rather limited. Specifically, greater effort should be made to define the region of MCAK binding on microtubule ends, as well as its structural characteristics. Given that MCAK has been previously shown to effectively tip-track growing microtubule ends through an established interaction with EB proteins, the physiological relevance of the present study is unclear. Finally, the manuscript does not cite or properly discuss a number of relevant literature references, the results of which should be directly compared and contrasted to those presented here.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors revisit an old question of how MCAK goes to microtubule ends, partially answered by many groups over the years. The authors seem to have omitted the literature on MCAK in the past 10-15 years. The novelty is limited due to what has previously been done on the question. Previous work showed MCAK targets to microtubule plus-ends in cells through association with EB proteins and Kif18b (work from Wordeman, Medema, Walczak, Welburn, Akhmanova) but none of their work is cited.

It is not obvious in the paper that these in vitro studies only reveal microtubule end targeting, rather than plus end targeting. MCAK diffuses on the lattice to both ends and its conformation and association with the lattice and ends has also been addressed by other groups-not cited here. I want to particularly highlight the work from Friel's lab where they identified a CDK phosphomimetic mutant close to helix4 which reduces the end preference of MCAK. This residue is very close to the one mutated in this study and is highly relevant because it is a site that is phosphorylated in vivo. This study and the mutant produced here suggest a charge-based recognition of the end of microtubules.

Here the authors analyze this MCAK recognition of the lattice and microtubule ends, with different nucleotide states of MCAK and in the presence of different nucleotide states for the microtubule lattice. The main conclusion is that MCAK affinity for microtubules varies in the presence of different nucleotides (ATP and analogs) which was partially known already. How different nucleotide states of the microtubule lattice influence MCAK binding is novel. This information will be interesting to researchers working on the mechanism of motors and microtubules. However, there are some issues with some experiments. In the paper, the authors say they measure MCAK residency of growing end microtubules, but in the kymographs, the microtubules don't appear dynamic- in addition, in Figure 1A, MCAK is at microtubule ends and does not cause depolymerization. I would have expected to see depolymerization of the microtubule after MCAK targeting. The MCAK mutants are not well characterized. Do they still have ATPase activity? Are they folded? Can the authors also highlight T537 and discuss this?

Finally, a few experiments are done with MCAK and XMAP215, after the authors say they have demonstrated the binding sites overlap. The data supporting this statement were not obvious and the conclusions that the effect of the two molecules are additive would argue against competing binding sites. Overall, while there are some interesting quantitative measurements of MCAK on microtubules - in particular in relation to the nucleotide state of the microtubule lattice - the insights into end-recognition are modest and do not address or discuss how it might happen in cells. Often the number of events is not recorded. Histograms with large SEM bars are presented, so it is hard to get a good idea of data distribution and robustness. Figures lack annotations. This compromises therefore their quantifications and conclusions. The discussion was hard to follow and needs streamlining, as well as putting their work in the context of what is known from other groups who produced work on this in the past few years.