The non–muscle actinopathy–associated mutation E334Q in cytoskeletal γ–actin perturbs interaction of actin filaments with myosin and ADF/cofilin family proteins

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Strengths:
The authors first perform several important controls to show that the expressed mutant actin is properly folded, and then show that the Arp2/3 complex behaves similarly with WT and mutant actin via a TIRF microscopy assay as well as a bulk pyrene-actin assay. A TIRF assay showed a small but significant reduction in the rate of elongation of the mutant actin suggesting only a mild polymerization defect.

Based on in silico analysis of the close location of the actin point mutation and bound cofilin, cofilin was chosen for further investigation. Faster de novo nucleation by cofilin was observed with mutant actin. In contrast, the mutant actin was more slowly severed. Both effects favor the retention of filamentous mutant actin. In solution, the effect of cofilin concentration and pH was assessed for both WT and mutant actin filaments, with a more limited repertoire of conditions in a TIRF assay that directly showed slower severing of mutant actin.

Lastly, the mutated residue in actin is predicted to interact with the cardiomyopathy loop in myosin and thus a standard in vitro motility assay with immobilized motors was used to show that non-muscle myosin 2A moved mutant actin more slowly, explained in part by a reduced affinity for the filament deduced from transient kinetic assays. By the same motility assay, myosin 5A also showed impaired interaction with the mutant filaments.

The Discussion is interesting and concludes that the mutant actin will co-exist with WT actin in filaments, and will contribute to altered actin dynamics and poor interaction with relevant myosin motors in the cellular context. While not an exhaustive list of possible defects, this is a solid start to understanding how this mutation might trigger a disease phenotype.

Weaknesses:
Potential assembly defects of the mutant actin could be more thoroughly investigated if the same experiment shown in Fig. 2 was repeated as a function of actin concentration, which would allow the rate of disassembly and the critical concentration to also be determined.

The more direct TIRF assay for cofilin severing was only performed at high cofilin concentration (100 nM). Lower concentrations of cofilin would also be informative, as well as directly examining by the TIRF assay the effect of cofilin on filaments composed of a 50:50 mixture of WT:mutant actin, the more relevant case for the cell.

The more appropriate assay to determine the effect of the actin point mutation on class 5 myosin would be the inverted assay where myosin walks along single actin filaments adhered to a coverslip. This would allow an evaluation of class 5 myosin processivity on WT versus mutant actin that more closely reflects how Myo5 acts in cells, instead of the ensemble assay used appropriately for myosin 2.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Greve et al. investigated the effects of a disease-associated gamma-actin mutation (E334Q) on actin filament polymerization, association of selected actin-binding proteins, and myosin activity. Recombinant wildtype and mutant proteins expressed in sf9 cells were found to be folded and stable, and the presence of the mutation altered a number of activities. Given the location of the mutation, it is not surprising that there are changes in polymerization and interactions with actin binding proteins. Nevertheless, it is important to quantify the effects of the mutation to better understand disease etiology. Some weaknesses were identified in the paper as discussed below.

Throughout the paper, the authors report average values and the standard-error-of-the-mean (SEM) for groups of three experiments. Reporting the SEM is not appropriate or useful for so few points, as it does not reflect the distribution of the data points. When only three points are available, it would be better to just show the three different points. Otherwise, plot the average and the range of the three points.

The description and characterization of the recombinant actin is incomplete. Please show gels of purified proteins. This is especially important with this preparation since the chymotrypsin step could result in internally cleaved proteins and altered properties, as shown by Ceron et al (2022). The authors should also comment on N-terminal acetylation of actin.

The authors do not use the best technique to assess actin polymerization parameters. Although the TIRF assay is excellent for some measurements, it is not as good as the standard pyrene-actin assays that provide critical concentration, nucleation, and polymerization parameters. The authors use pyrene-actin in other parts of the paper, so it is not clear why they don't do the assays that are the standard in the actin field.

The authors' data suggest that, while the binding of cofilin-1 to both the WT and mutant actins remains similar, the major defect of the E334Q actin is that it is not as readily severed/disassembled by cofilin. What is missing is a direct measurement of the severing rate (number of breaks per second) as measured in TIRF.

Figure 4 shows that the E334Q mutation increases rather than decreases the number of filaments that spontaneously assemble in the TIRF assay, but it is unclear how reduced severing would lead to increased filament numbers, rather, the opposite would be expected. A more straightforward approach would be to perform experiments where severing leads to more nuclei and therefore enhances the net bulk assembly rate.

Figure 5 A: in the pyrene disassembly assay, where actin is diluted below its critical concentration, cofilin enhances the rate of depolymerization by generating more free ends. The E334Q mutation leads to decreased cofilin-induced severing and therefore lower depolymerization. While these data seem convincing, it would be better to present them as an XY plot and fit the data to lines for comparison of the slopes.

Figure 5 B and C: the cosedimentation data do not seem to help elucidate the underlying mechanism. While the authors report statistical significance, differences are small, especially for gel densitometry measurements where the error is high, which suggests that there may be little biological significance. Importantly, example gels from these experiments should be shown, if not the complete set included in the supplement. In B, the higher cofilin concentrations would be expected to stabilize the filaments and thus the curve should be U-shaped.

Figure 5 D: these data show that the binding of cofilin to WT and E334Q actin is approximately the same, with the mutant binding slightly more weakly. It would be clearer if the two plots were normalized to their respective plateaus since the difference in arbitrary units distracts from the conclusion of the figure. If the difference in the plateaus is meaningful, please explain.

Figure 6: It is assumed that the authors are trying to show in this figure that cofilin binds both actins approximately the same but does not sever as readily for E334Q actin. The numerous parameters measured do not directly address what the authors are actually trying to show, which presumably is that the rate of severing is lower for E334Q than WT. It is therefore puzzling why no measurement of severing events per second per micron of actin in TIRF is made, which would give a more precise account of the underlying mechanism.

Actin-activated steady-state ATPase data of the NM2A with mutant and WT actin would have been extremely useful and informative. The authors show the ability to make these types of measurements in the paper (NADH assay), and it is surprising that they are not included for assessing the myosin activity. It may be because of limited actin quantities. If this is the case, it should be indicated.

(line 310) The authors state that they "noticed increased rapid dissociation and association events for E334Q filaments" in the motility assay. This observation motivates the authors to assess actin affinities of NM2A-HMM. Although differences in rigor and AM.ADP affinities are found between mutant and wt actins, the actin attachment lifetimes (many minutes) are unlikely to be related to the rapid association and dissociation event seen in the motility assay. Rather, this jiggling is more likely to be related to a lower duty ratio of the myosins, which appears to be the conclusion reached for the myosin-V data. These points should be clarified in the text.

(line 327) The authors report that the 1/K1 value is unchanged. There are no descriptions of this experiment in the paper. I am assuming the authors measured the ATP-induced dissociation of actomyosin and determined ATP affinity (K1) from this experiment. If this is the case, they should describe the experiment and show the data, provide a second-order rate constate for ATP binding, and report the max rate of dissociation (k2). This is a kinetic experiment done frequently by this group, so the absence of these details is surprising.