Talin-KANK1 interaction controls the recruitment of cortical microtubule stabilizing complexes to focal adhesions

  1. Benjamin P Bouchet
  2. Rosemarie E Gough
  3. York-Christoph Ammon
  4. Dieudonnée van de Willige
  5. Harm Post
  6. Guillaume Jacquemet
  7. AF Maarten Altelaar
  8. Albert JR Heck
  9. Ben T Goult  Is a corresponding author
  10. Anna Akhmanova  Is a corresponding author
  1. Utrecht University, Netherlands
  2. University of Kent, United Kingdom
  3. University of Turku, Finland
  4. University of Utrecht, Netherlands

Abstract

The cross-talk between dynamic microtubules and integrin-based adhesions to the extracellular matrix plays a crucial role in cell polarity and migration. Microtubules regulate the turnover of adhesion sites, and, in turn, focal adhesions promote cortical microtubule capture and stabilization in their vicinity, but the underlying mechanism is unknown. Here, we show that cortical microtubule stabilization sites containing CLASPs, KIF21A, LL5β and liprins are recruited to focal adhesions by the adaptor protein KANK1, which directly interacts with the major adhesion component, talin. Structural studies showed that the conserved KN domain in KANK1 binds to the talin rod domain R7. Perturbation of this interaction, including a single point mutation in talin, which disrupts KANK1 binding but not the talin function in adhesion, abrogates the association of microtubule-stabilizing complexes with focal adhesions. We propose that the talin-KANK1 interaction links the two macromolecular assemblies that control cortical attachment of actin fibers and microtubules.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Benjamin P Bouchet

    Department of Cell Biology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Rosemarie E Gough

    School of Biosciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. York-Christoph Ammon

    Department of Cell Biology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Dieudonnée van de Willige

    Department of Cell Biology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Harm Post

    Biomolecular Mass Spectrometry and Proteomics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Guillaume Jacquemet

    Turku Centre for Biotechnology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. AF Maarten Altelaar

    Biomolecular Mass Spectrometry and Proteomics, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Albert JR Heck

    Biomolecular Mass Spectrometry and Proteomics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2405-4404
  9. Ben T Goult

    School of Biosciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    B.T.Goult@kent.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3438-2807
  10. Anna Akhmanova

    Department of Cell Biology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    a.akhmanova@uu.nl
    Competing interests
    Anna Akhmanova, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9048-8614

Reviewing Editor

  1. W James Nelson, Stanford University, United States

Version history

  1. Received: May 24, 2016
  2. Accepted: July 12, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 13, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: August 23, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record updated: September 27, 2016 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2016, Bouchet 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

  • 6,998
    views
  • 1,458
    downloads
  • 146
    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. Benjamin P Bouchet
  2. Rosemarie E Gough
  3. York-Christoph Ammon
  4. Dieudonnée van de Willige
  5. Harm Post
  6. Guillaume Jacquemet
  7. AF Maarten Altelaar
  8. Albert JR Heck
  9. Ben T Goult
  10. Anna Akhmanova
(2016)
Talin-KANK1 interaction controls the recruitment of cortical microtubule stabilizing complexes to focal adhesions
eLife 5:e18124.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18124

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18124

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Damien M Rasmussen, Manny M Semonis ... Nicholas M Levinson
    Research Article

    The type II class of RAF inhibitors currently in clinical trials paradoxically activate BRAF at subsaturating concentrations. Activation is mediated by induction of BRAF dimers, but why activation rather than inhibition occurs remains unclear. Using biophysical methods tracking BRAF dimerization and conformation, we built an allosteric model of inhibitor-induced dimerization that resolves the allosteric contributions of inhibitor binding to the two active sites of the dimer, revealing key differences between type I and type II RAF inhibitors. For type II inhibitors the allosteric coupling between inhibitor binding and BRAF dimerization is distributed asymmetrically across the two dimer binding sites, with binding to the first site dominating the allostery. This asymmetry results in efficient and selective induction of dimers with one inhibited and one catalytically active subunit. Our allosteric models quantitatively account for paradoxical activation data measured for 11 RAF inhibitors. Unlike type II inhibitors, type I inhibitors lack allosteric asymmetry and do not activate BRAF homodimers. Finally, NMR data reveal that BRAF homodimers are dynamically asymmetric with only one of the subunits locked in the active αC-in state. This provides a structural mechanism for how binding of only a single αC-in inhibitor molecule can induce potent BRAF dimerization and activation.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Nicholas James Ose, Paul Campitelli ... Sefika Banu Ozkan
    Research Article

    We integrate evolutionary predictions based on the neutral theory of molecular evolution with protein dynamics to generate mechanistic insight into the molecular adaptations of the SARS-COV-2 spike (S) protein. With this approach, we first identified candidate adaptive polymorphisms (CAPs) of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein and assessed the impact of these CAPs through dynamics analysis. Not only have we found that CAPs frequently overlap with well-known functional sites, but also, using several different dynamics-based metrics, we reveal the critical allosteric interplay between SARS-CoV-2 CAPs and the S protein binding sites with the human ACE2 (hACE2) protein. CAPs interact far differently with the hACE2 binding site residues in the open conformation of the S protein compared to the closed form. In particular, the CAP sites control the dynamics of binding residues in the open state, suggesting an allosteric control of hACE2 binding. We also explored the characteristic mutations of different SARS-CoV-2 strains to find dynamic hallmarks and potential effects of future mutations. Our analyses reveal that Delta strain-specific variants have non-additive (i.e., epistatic) interactions with CAP sites, whereas the less pathogenic Omicron strains have mostly additive mutations. Finally, our dynamics-based analysis suggests that the novel mutations observed in the Omicron strain epistatically interact with the CAP sites to help escape antibody binding.