Competition between Tropomyosin, Fimbrin, and ADF/Cofilin drives their sorting to distinct actin filament networks

  1. Jenna R Christensen
  2. Glen M Hocky
  3. Kaitlin E Homa
  4. Alisha N Morganthaler
  5. Sarah E Hitchcock-DeGregori
  6. Gregory A Voth
  7. David R Kovar  Is a corresponding author
  1. The University of Chicago, United States
  2. Rutgers University, United States

Abstract

The fission yeast actin cytoskeleton is an ideal, simplified system to investigate fundamental mechanisms behind cellular self-organization. By focusing on the stabilizing protein tropomyosin Cdc8, bundling protein fimbrin Fim1, and severing protein coffin Adf1, we examined how their pairwise and collective interactions with actin filaments regulate their activity and segregation to functionally diverse F-actin networks. Utilizing multi-color TIRF microscopy of in vitro reconstituted F-actin networks, we observed and characterized two distinct Cdc8 cables loading and spreading cooperatively on individual actin filaments. Furthermore, Cdc8, Fim1, and Adf1 all compete for association with F-actin by different mechanisms, and their cooperative association with actin filaments affects their ability to compete. Finally, competition between Fim1 and Adf1 for F-actin synergizes their activities, promoting rapid displacement of Cdc8 from a dense F-actin network. Our findings reveal that competitive and cooperative interactions between actin binding proteins help define their associations with different F-actin networks.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jenna R Christensen

    Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Glen M Hocky

    Department of Chemistry, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5637-0698
  3. Kaitlin E Homa

    Department of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Alisha N Morganthaler

    Department of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Sarah E Hitchcock-DeGregori

    Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Gregory A Voth

    Department of Chemistry, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. David R Kovar

    Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    For correspondence
    drkovar@uchicago.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5747-0949

Funding

National Institutes of Health (GM079265)

  • David R Kovar

American Cancer Society (RSG-11-126-01-CSM)

  • David R Kovar

National Science Foundation (DGE-1144082)

  • Jenna R Christensen

National Institutes of Health (T32 GM0071832)

  • Jenna R Christensen
  • Kaitlin E Homa

National Institutes of Health (F32 GM113415-01)

  • Glen M Hocky

National Institutes of Health (GM093965)

  • Sarah E Hitchcock-DeGregori

National Science Foundation (DMR-1420709)

  • Gregory A Voth
  • David R Kovar

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Mohan K Balasubramanian, University of Warwick, United Kingdom

Version history

  1. Received: November 10, 2016
  2. Accepted: March 9, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 10, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: April 25, 2017 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2017, Christensen 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

  • 3,709
    views
  • 776
    downloads
  • 73
    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. Jenna R Christensen
  2. Glen M Hocky
  3. Kaitlin E Homa
  4. Alisha N Morganthaler
  5. Sarah E Hitchcock-DeGregori
  6. Gregory A Voth
  7. David R Kovar
(2017)
Competition between Tropomyosin, Fimbrin, and ADF/Cofilin drives their sorting to distinct actin filament networks
eLife 6:e23152.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23152

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23152

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Xiao-Ru Chen, Karuna Dixit ... Tatyana I Igumenova
    Research Article

    Regulated hydrolysis of the phosphoinositide phosphatidylinositol(4,5)-bis-phosphate to diacylglycerol and inositol-1,4,5-P3 defines a major eukaryotic pathway for translation of extracellular cues to intracellular signaling circuits. Members of the lipid-activated protein kinase C isoenzyme family (PKCs) play central roles in this signaling circuit. One of the regulatory mechanisms employed to downregulate stimulated PKC activity is via a proteasome-dependent degradation pathway that is potentiated by peptidyl-prolyl isomerase Pin1. Here, we show that contrary to prevailing models, Pin1 does not regulate conventional PKC isoforms α and βII via a canonical cis-trans isomerization of the peptidyl-prolyl bond. Rather, Pin1 acts as a PKC binding partner that controls PKC activity via sequestration of the C-terminal tail of the kinase. The high-resolution structure of full-length Pin1 complexed to the C-terminal tail of PKCβII reveals that a novel bivalent interaction mode underlies the non-catalytic mode of Pin1 action. Specifically, Pin1 adopts a conformation in which it uses the WW and PPIase domains to engage two conserved phosphorylated PKC motifs, the turn motif and hydrophobic motif, respectively. Hydrophobic motif is a non-canonical Pin1-interacting element. The structural information combined with the results of extensive binding studies and experiments in cultured cells suggest that non-catalytic mechanisms represent unappreciated modes of Pin1-mediated regulation of AGC kinases and other key enzymes/substrates.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christian Galicia, Giambattista Guaitoli ... Wim Versées
    Research Article

    Roco proteins entered the limelight after mutations in human LRRK2 were identified as a major cause of familial Parkinson’s disease. LRRK2 is a large and complex protein combining a GTPase and protein kinase activity, and disease mutations increase the kinase activity, while presumably decreasing the GTPase activity. Although a cross-communication between both catalytic activities has been suggested, the underlying mechanisms and the regulatory role of the GTPase domain remain unknown. Several structures of LRRK2 have been reported, but structures of Roco proteins in their activated GTP-bound state are lacking. Here, we use single-particle cryo-electron microscopy to solve the structure of a bacterial Roco protein (CtRoco) in its GTP-bound state, aided by two conformation-specific nanobodies: NbRoco1 and NbRoco2. This structure presents CtRoco in an active monomeric state, featuring a very large GTP-induced conformational change using the LRR-Roc linker as a hinge. Furthermore, this structure shows how NbRoco1 and NbRoco2 collaborate to activate CtRoco in an allosteric way. Altogether, our data provide important new insights into the activation mechanism of Roco proteins, with relevance to LRRK2 regulation, and suggest new routes for the allosteric modulation of their GTPase activity.