Palmitoylation of LIM Kinase-1 ensures spine-specific actin polymerization and morphological plasticity

  1. Joju George
  2. Cary Soares
  3. Audrey Montersino
  4. Jean-Claude Beique
  5. Gareth M Thomas  Is a corresponding author
  1. Indiana University School of Medicine, United States
  2. University of Ottawa, Canada
  3. Temple University School of Medicine, United States

Abstract

Precise regulation of the dendritic spine actin cytoskeleton is critical for neurodevelopment and neuronal plasticity, but how neurons spatially control actin dynamics is not well defined. Here, we identify direct palmitoylation of the actin regulator LIM kinase-1 (LIMK1) as a novel mechanism to control spine-specific actin dynamics. A conserved palmitoyl-motif is necessary and sufficient to target LIMK1 to spines and to anchor LIMK1 in spines. ShRNA knockdown/rescue experiments reveal that LIMK1 palmitoylation is essential for normal spine actin polymerization, for spine-specific structural plasticity and for long-term spine stability. Palmitoylation is critical for LIMK1 function because this modification not only controls LIMK1 targeting, but is also essential for LIMK1 activation by its membrane-localized upstream activator PAK. These novel roles for palmitoylation in the spatial control of actin dynamics and kinase signaling provide new insights into structural plasticity mechanisms and strengthen links between dendritic spine impairments and neuropathological conditions.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Joju George

    Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, The Stark Neuroscience Research Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Cary Soares

    Heart and Stroke Partnership for Stroke Recovery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Audrey Montersino

    Shriners Hospitals Pediatric Research Center, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jean-Claude Beique

    Heart and Stroke Partnership for Stroke Recovery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Gareth M Thomas

    Shriners Hospitals Pediatric Research Center, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, United States
    For correspondence
    gareth.thomas@temple.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Pekka Lappalainen, University of Helsinki, Finland

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols (#3439, #4277) of Temple University School of Medicine.

Version history

  1. Received: January 4, 2015
  2. Accepted: April 16, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 17, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: May 1, 2015 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: May 13, 2015 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2015, George 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

  • 2,719
    views
  • 716
    downloads
  • 40
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

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)

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

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

  1. Joju George
  2. Cary Soares
  3. Audrey Montersino
  4. Jean-Claude Beique
  5. Gareth M Thomas
(2015)
Palmitoylation of LIM Kinase-1 ensures spine-specific actin polymerization and morphological plasticity
eLife 4:e06327.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06327

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06327

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Ya-Hui Lin, Li-Wen Wang ... Li-An Chu
    Research Article

    Tissue-clearing and labeling techniques have revolutionized brain-wide imaging and analysis, yet their application to clinical formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) blocks remains challenging. We introduce HIF-Clear, a novel method for efficiently clearing and labeling centimeter-thick FFPE specimens using elevated temperature and concentrated detergents. HIF-Clear with multi-round immunolabeling reveals neuron circuitry regulating multiple neurotransmitter systems in a whole FFPE mouse brain and is able to be used as the evaluation of disease treatment efficiency. HIF-Clear also supports expansion microscopy and can be performed on a non-sectioned 15-year-old FFPE specimen, as well as a 3-month formalin-fixed mouse brain. Thus, HIF-Clear represents a feasible approach for researching archived FFPE specimens for future neuroscientific and 3D neuropathological analyses.

    1. Neuroscience
    Amanda Chu, Nicholas T Gordon ... Michael A McDannald
    Research Article

    Pavlovian fear conditioning has been extensively used to study the behavioral and neural basis of defensive systems. In a typical procedure, a cue is paired with foot shock, and subsequent cue presentation elicits freezing, a behavior theoretically linked to predator detection. Studies have since shown a fear conditioned cue can elicit locomotion, a behavior that - in addition to jumping, and rearing - is theoretically linked to imminent or occurring predation. A criticism of studies observing fear conditioned cue-elicited locomotion is that responding is non-associative. We gave rats Pavlovian fear discrimination over a baseline of reward seeking. TTL-triggered cameras captured 5 behavior frames/s around cue presentation. Experiment 1 examined the emergence of danger-specific behaviors over fear acquisition. Experiment 2 examined the expression of danger-specific behaviors in fear extinction. In total, we scored 112,000 frames for nine discrete behavior categories. Temporal ethograms show that during acquisition, a fear conditioned cue suppresses reward seeking and elicits freezing, but also elicits locomotion, jumping, and rearing - all of which are maximal when foot shock is imminent. During extinction, a fear conditioned cue most prominently suppresses reward seeking, and elicits locomotion that is timed to shock delivery. The independent expression of these behaviors in both experiments reveal a fear conditioned cue to orchestrate a temporally organized suite of behaviors.