Is chloroplast import of photosynthesis proteins facilitated by an actin-TOC-TIC-VIPP1 complex?

Actin filaments are major components of the cytoskeleton that interact with chloroplast envelope membranes to allow chloroplast positioning and movement, stromule mobility and gravitropism perception. We recently reported that Toc159, a component of the TOC complex of the chloroplast protein import apparatus, interacts directly with actin. The interaction of Toc159 and actin was identified by co-immunoprecipitation and co-sedimentation experiments with detergent-solubilised pea chloroplast envelope membranes. In addition, many of the components of the TOC-TIC protein import apparatus and VIPP1 (vesicle-inducing protein in plastids 1) were identified by mass spectroscopy in the material co-immunoprecipitated with antibodies to actin. Toc159 is the receptor for the import of photosynthesis proteins and VIPP1 is involved in thylakoid membrane formation by inducing vesicle formation from the chloroplast inner envelope membrane, suggesting we may have identified an actin-TOCTIC-VIPP1 complex that may provide a means of channeling cytosolic preproteins to the thylakoid membrane. The interaction of Toc159 with actin may facilitate exchange between the putative soluble and membrane forms of Toc159 and promote the interaction of cytosolic preproteins with the TOC complex.Key words: actin, chloroplast, protein import, TOC complex, TIC complex, VIPP1Actin is a ubiquitous protein of eukaryotic cells and a major component of the cytoskeleton as microfilaments. In plant cells, plastids are closely associated with actin microfilaments.^1,2 A direct interaction of plastids with the actin cytoskeleton has been postulated to anchor chloroplasts at appropriate intracellular positions,³ to support chloroplast light-intensitydependent movement,⁴ to facilitate plastid stromule (stroma-filled tubule) mobility^5,6 and to participate in gravity perception.⁷ The known proteins implicated in plastid-actin interaction are CHUP1 (chloroplast unusual positioning 1), a protein exclusively targeted to the chloroplast outer envelope membrane that is essential for chloroplast anchorage to the plasma membrane,⁸ and myosin XI proteins that play a role in stromule movement9 and in gravitropism.^10,11 Recently, we found that Toc159 also interacts with actin.¹²Toc159 is a component of the TOC complex, which is part of the chloroplast protein translocation apparatus. This apparatus consists of two membrane protein complexes that associate to allow translocation of nucleus-encoded proteins from the cytoplasm to the interior stromal compartment (reviewed in ref. ¹³). The translocon at the outer envelope membrane of chloroplasts (TOC complex) mediates the initial recognition of preproteins and their translocation across the outer membrane.¹⁴ The translocon at the inner envelope membrane of chloroplasts (TIC complex) physically associates with the TOC complex and provides the membrane translocation channel for the inner membrane. In addition, the TOC and TIC complexes interact with a set of molecular chaperones (ClpC and Hsp70), which assist the transfer of imported proteins^15–17 (Fig. 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1Schematic diagram of Toc159-actin interactions and the import of photosynthesis proteins. Toc159, linked to actin by its A-domain, recruits a newly synthesized photosynthesis preprotein by its G-domain. Actin filaments facilitate Toc159 movement to the chloroplast outer envelope membrane for integration into the TOC complex. The core TOC complex is formed by Toc159, Toc34 and Toc75. Tic22 acts to facilitate the passage of preproteins across the intermembrane space and interacts with the TIC complex. The core TIC complex is composed of Tic110, Tic20 and/or Tic21, and Tic40. The Tic110 protein recruits stromal molecular chaperone ClpC. On arrival in the stroma, the transit peptide is cleaved by SPP, and other chaperones (Hsp90 or Hsp70) may assist in the folding. VIPP1 interacts with the chaperones and polymerises, inducing chloroplast inner envelope membrane budding, leading to thylakoid formation.The interaction between actin and Toc159 was identified by co-immunoprecipitation and co-sedimentation experiments with detergent-solubilised pea chloroplast envelope membranes, and confirmed with Toc159 expressed in Escherichia coli. In addition, many other components of the TOC-TIC protein import apparatus were co-immunoprecipitated by antibodies to actin and co-sedimented with added F-actin filaments.¹² Using mass spectrometry, we identified the principal components of the TOC complex (Toc159, Toc75 and Toc34) and three accepted components of the TIC core complex (Tic110, Tic40 and ClpC). The presence of Tic20/21 and Tic22 could not be examined because they migrate in the same position on SDS-PAGE as the light chains of antibody molecules but, since they are involved in linking the TOC and TIC complexes,⁶ they may also be part of the complex with actin.The identification of the region of Toc159 that interacts with actin is an important feature to help establish whether any of the other Toc159 isoforms (such as Toc132 and Toc120) are likely to interact with actin. Toc159 family proteins are composed of three different domains: the A (acidic) domain, the G (GTPase) domain and the M (membrane) domain.¹⁸ The interaction of Toc159 with actin appears most likely to be through the A-domain; the G-domain did not co-sediment with actin filaments¹² and the M-domain is embedded in the chloroplast envelope outer membrane and therefore is unlikely to be accessible to actin. Toc132 and Toc120 have shorter A-domains than Toc159 and this may affect their ability to bind actin. Although all the Toc159 isoforms are implicated in chloroplast protein import, Toc132 and Toc120 are involved in the import of chloroplast housekeeping proteins and Toc159 is specialized for the import of photosynthesis proteins.¹⁸ For import of photosynthesis proteins, two models have been proposed for preprotein recognition by the TOC complex: the ‘targeting model’ where the newly synthesized preprotein is first bound by a free cytosolic form of Toc159, and the ‘motor model’ where the transit peptide is first phosphorylated and then bound to Toc34 associated with the other TOC subunits in the outer envelope membrane.¹³ In support of the first model, Toc159 has been reported to exist in both cytosolic and membrane-bound forms^19,20 and the soluble form of Toc159 is able to bind preproteins.^20,21 Toc159 is proposed to be the major point of contact for preproteins during the early stages of protein import through its A-domain.²² The interaction of Toc159 with actin might provide a means to favor exchange between the putative soluble and membrane forms of Toc159 and potentially facilitate chloroplast photosynthesis protein import (Fig. 1).Several features of this model require additional experimental evidence. The involvement of a soluble form of Toc159 is highly controversial,¹³ and evidence for a physiological role in vivo is required. Experimental evidence for a facilitating role of the actin cytoskeleton in chloroplast protein import is also required. Does the presence of a basket of actin filaments surrounding the chloroplasts² provide a means of concentrating cytosolic Toc159 in the vicinity of the chloroplasts? Or do actin filaments provide a trackway for movement of Toc159 to or from chloroplasts? Myosin, the motor protein for movement along actin filaments, was not detected in the co-immunoprecipitated complex, but this does not necessarily rule out its involvement.VIPP1 was also identified in the complex with actin. VIPP1 is involved in thylakoid membrane formation by vesicle formation from the chloroplast inner envelope membrane²³ and the quantity of thylakoid membrane proteins is closely correlated to the amount of VIPP1 in chloroplasts.²⁴ VIPP1 is also known to interact with Hsp70 and Hsp90 chaperones^25–27 and these chaperones may associate with the stromal face of the TIC complex to support protein folding.¹⁵ This raises the possibility that an actin-TOC-TIC-VIPP1 complex may facilitate thylakoid formation by channeling the import of thylakoid-located photosynthesis proteins through the chloroplast envelope membrane into vesicles directed to the thylakoid membrane (Fig. 1).Our study of actin-binding proteins in the chloroplast envelope membrane may have provided an initial glimpse at previously unrecognized mechanisms facilitating the import of photosynthesis proteins by chloroplasts. The formation of an actin-TOC-TIC-VIPP1 complex may provide a means of channeling cytosolic preproteins to the thylakoid membrane.     

Differential Regulation of Actin Polymerization and Structure by Yeast Formin Isoforms

The budding yeast formins, Bnr1 and Bni1, behave very differently with respect to their interactions with muscle actin. However, the mechanisms underlying these differences are unclear, and these formins do not interact with muscle actin in vivo. We use yeast wild type and mutant actins to further assess these differences between Bnr1 and Bni1. Low ionic strength G-buffer does not promote actin polymerization. However, Bnr1, but not Bni1, causes the polymerization of pyrene-labeled Mg-G-actin in G-buffer into single filaments based on fluorometric and EM observations. Polymerization by Bnr1 does not occur with Ca-G-actin. By cosedimentation, maximum filament formation occurs at a Bnr1:actin ratio of 1:2. The interaction of Bnr1 with pyrene-labeled S265C Mg-actin yields a pyrene excimer peak, from the cross-strand interaction of pyrene probes, which only occurs in the context of F-actin. In F-buffer, Bnr1 promotes much faster yeast actin polymerization than Bni1. It also bundles the F-actin in contrast to the low ionic strength situation where only single filaments form. Thus, the differences previously observed with muscle actin are not actin isoform-specific. The binding of both formins to F-actin saturate at an equimolar ratio, but only about 30% of each formin cosediments with F-actin. Finally, addition of Bnr1 but not Bni1 to pyrene-labeled wild type and S265C Mg-F actins enhanced the pyrene- and pyrene-excimer fluorescence, respectively, suggesting Bnr1 also alters F-actin structure. These differences may facilitate the ability of Bnr1 to form the actin cables needed for polarized delivery of nutrients and organelles to the growing yeast bud.Bni1 and Bnr1 are the two formin isoforms expressed in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (1, 2). These proteins, as other isoforms in the formin family, are large multidomain proteins (3, 4). Several regulatory domains, including one for binding the G-protein rho, are located at the N-terminal half of the protein (4–7). FH1, FH2, and Bud6 binding domains are located in the C-terminal half of the protein (8). The formin homology 1 (FH1)² domain contains several sequential poly-l-proline motifs, and it interacts with the profilin/actin complex to recruit actin monomers and regulate the insertion of actin monomers at the barbed end of actin (9–11). The fomin homology domain 2 (FH2) forms a donut-shaped homodimer, which wraps around actin dimers at the barbed end of actin filaments (12, 13). One important function of formin is to facilitate actin polymerization by stabilizing actin dimers or trimers under polymerization conditions and then to processively associate with the barbed end of the elongating filament to control actin filament elongation kinetics (13–18).A major unsolved protein in the study of formins is the elucidation of the individual functions of different isoforms and their regulation. In vivo, these two budding yeast formins have distinct cellular locations and dynamics (1, 2, 19, 20). Bni1 concentrates at the budding site before the daughter cell buds from the mother cell, moves along with the tip of the daughter cell, and then travels back to the neck between daughter and mother cells at the end of segregation. Bnr1 localizes only at the neck of the budding cell in a very short period of time after bud emergence. Although a key cellular function of these two formins in yeast is to promote actin cable formation (8, 18), the roles of the individual formins in different cellular process is unclear because deleting either individual formin gene has limited impact on cell growth and deleting both genes together is lethal (21).Although each of the two formins can nucleate actin filament formation in vitro, the manner in which they affect polymerization is distinctly isoform-specific. Most of this mechanistic work in vitro has used formin fragments containing the FH1 and FH2 domains. Bni1 alone processively caps the barbed end of actin filaments partially inhibiting polymerization at this end (14, 16, 18). The profilin-actin complex, recruited to the actin barbed end through its binding to Bni1 FH1 domain, possibly raises the local actin concentration and appears to allow this inhibition to be overcome, thereby, accelerating barbed end polymerization. It has also been shown that this complex modifies the kinetics of actin dynamics at the barbed end (9, 11, 18, 22). Moreover, Bni1 participation leads only to the formation of single filaments (8). In comparison, the Bnr1 FH1-FH2 domain facilitates actin polymerization much more efficiently than does Bni1. Moseley and Goode (8) showed Bnr1 accelerates actin polymerization up to 10 times better than does Bni and produces actin filament bundles when the Bnr1/actin molar ratio is above 1:2. Finally, the regulation of Bni1 and Bnr1 by formin binding is different. For example, Bud 6/Aip3, a yeast cell polarity factor, binds to Bni1, but not Bnr1, and also stimulates its activity in vitro.For their studies, Moseley and Goode (8) utilized mammalian skeletal muscle actin instead of the S. cerevisiae actin with which the yeast formins are designed to function. It is entirely possible that the differences observed with the two formins are influenced quantitatively or qualitatively by the nature of the actin used in the study. This possibility must be seriously considered because although yeast and muscle actins are 87% identical in sequence, they display marked differences in their polymerization behavior (23). Yeast actin nucleates filaments better than muscle actin (24, 25). It appears to form shorter and more flexible filaments than does muscle actin (26, 27). Finally, the disposition of the P_i released during the hydrolysis of ATP that occurs during polymerization is different. Yeast actin releases its P_i concomitant with hydrolysis of the bound ATP whereas muscle actin retains the P_i for a significant amount of time following nucleotide hydrolysis (28, 29). This difference is significant because ADP-P_i F-actin has been shown to be more stable than ADP F-actin (30). Another example of this isoform dependence is the interaction of yeast Arp2/3 with yeast versus muscle actins (31). Yeast Arp2/3 complex accelerates polymerization of muscle actin only in the presence of a nucleation protein factor such as WASP. However, with yeast actin, no such auxiliary protein is required. In light of these actin behavioral differences, to better understand the functional differences of these two formins in vivo, we have studied the behavior of Bni 1 and Bnr 1 with WT and mutant yeast actins, and we have also explored the molecular basis underlying the Bnr 1-induced formation of actin nuclei from G-actin.     

F-Actin Dynamics in Neurospora crassa

This study demonstrates the utility of Lifeact for the investigation of actin dynamics in Neurospora crassa and also represents the first report of simultaneous live-cell imaging of the actin and microtubule cytoskeletons in filamentous fungi. Lifeact is a 17-amino-acid peptide derived from the nonessential Saccharomyces cerevisiae actin-binding protein Abp140p. Fused to green fluorescent protein (GFP) or red fluorescent protein (TagRFP), Lifeact allowed live-cell imaging of actin patches, cables, and rings in N. crassa without interfering with cellular functions. Actin cables and patches localized to sites of active growth during the establishment and maintenance of cell polarity in germ tubes and conidial anastomosis tubes (CATs). Recurrent phases of formation and retrograde movement of complex arrays of actin cables were observed at growing tips of germ tubes and CATs. Two populations of actin patches exhibiting slow and fast movement were distinguished, and rapid (1.2 μm/s) saltatory transport of patches along cables was observed. Actin cables accumulated and subsequently condensed into actin rings associated with septum formation. F-actin organization was markedly different in the tip regions of mature hyphae and in germ tubes. Only mature hyphae displayed a subapical collar of actin patches and a concentration of F-actin within the core of the Spitzenkörper. Coexpression of Lifeact-TagRFP and β-tubulin–GFP revealed distinct but interrelated localization patterns of F-actin and microtubules during the initiation and maintenance of tip growth.Actins are highly conserved proteins found in all eukaryotes and have an enormous variety of cellular roles. The monomeric form (globular actin, or G-actin) can self-assemble, with the aid of numerous actin-binding proteins (ABPs), into microfilaments (filamentous actin, or F-actin), which, together with microtubules, form the two major components of the fungal cytoskeleton. Numerous pharmacological and genetic studies of fungi have demonstrated crucial roles for F-actin in cell polarity, exocytosis, endocytosis, cytokinesis, and organelle movement (6, 7, 20, 34, 35, 51, 52, 59). Phalloidin staining, immunofluorescent labeling, and fluorescent-protein (FP)-based live-cell imaging have revealed three distinct subpopulations of F-actin-containing structures in fungi: patches, cables, and rings (1, 14, 28, 34, 60, 63, 64). Actin patches are associated with the plasma membrane and represent an accumulation of F-actin around endocytic vesicles (3, 26, 57). Actin cables are bundles of actin filaments stabilized with cross-linking proteins, such as tropomyosins and fimbrin, and are assembled by formins at sites of active growth, where they form tracks for myosin V-dependent polarized secretion and organelle transport (10, 16, 17, 27, 38, 47, 48). Cables, unlike patches, are absolutely required for polarized growth in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae (34, 38). Contractile actomyosin rings are essential for cytokinesis in budding yeast, whereas in filamentous fungi, actin rings are less well studied but are known to be involved in septum formation (20, 28, 34, 39, 40).Actin cables and patches have been particularly well studied in budding yeast. However, there are likely to be important differences between F-actin architecture and dynamics in budding yeast and those in filamentous fungi, as budding yeasts display only a short period of polarized growth during bud formation, which is followed by isotropic growth over the bud surface (10). Sustained polarized growth during hyphal morphogenesis is a defining feature of filamentous fungi (21), making them attractive models for studying the roles of the actin cytoskeleton in cell polarization, tip growth, and organelle transport.In Neurospora crassa and other filamentous fungi, disruption of the actin cytoskeleton leads to rapid tip swelling, which indicates perturbation of polarized tip growth, demonstrating a critical role for F-actin in targeted secretion to particular sites on the plasma membrane (7, 22, 29, 56). Immunofluorescence studies of N. crassa have shown that F-actin localizes to hyphal tips as “clouds” and “plaques” (7, 54, 59). However, immunolabeling has failed to reveal actin cables in N. crassa and offers limited insights into F-actin dynamics. Live-cell imaging of F-actin architecture and dynamics has not been accomplished in N. crassa, yet it is expected to yield key insights into cell polarization, tip growth, and intracellular transport.We took advantage of a recently developed live-cell imaging probe for F-actin called Lifeact (43). Lifeact is a 17-amino-acid peptide derived from the N terminus of the budding yeast actin-binding protein Abp140 (5, 63) and has recently been demonstrated to be a universal live-cell imaging marker for F-actin in eukaryotes (43). Here, we report the successful application of fluorescent Lifeact fusion constructs for live-cell imaging of F-actin in N. crassa. We constructed two synthetic genes consisting of Lifeact fused to “synthetic” green fluorescent protein (sGFP) (S65T) (henceforth termed GFP) (12) or red fluorescent protein (TagRFP) (33) and expressed these constructs in various N. crassa strains. In all strain backgrounds, fluorescent Lifeact constructs clearly labeled actin patches, cables, and rings and revealed a direct association of F-actin structures with sites of cell polarization and active tip growth. Our results demonstrate the efficacy of Lifeact as a nontoxic live-cell imaging probe in N. crassa.     

Dynamin2 GTPase and Cortactin Remodel Actin Filaments

The large GTPase dynamin, best known for its activities that remodel membranes during endocytosis, also regulates F-actin-rich structures, including podosomes, phagocytic cups, actin comet tails, subcortical ruffles, and stress fibers. The mechanisms by which dynamin regulates actin filaments are not known, but an emerging view is that dynamin influences F-actin via its interactions with proteins that interact directly or indirectly with actin filaments. We show here that dynamin2 GTPase activity remodels actin filaments in vitro via a mechanism that depends on the binding partner and F-actin-binding protein, cortactin. Tightly associated actin filaments cross-linked by dynamin2 and cortactin became loosely associated after GTP addition when viewed by transmission electron microscopy. Actin filaments were dynamically unraveled and fragmented after GTP addition when viewed in real time using total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy. Cortactin stimulated the intrinsic GTPase activity of dynamin2 and maintained a stable link between actin filaments and dynamin2, even in the presence of GTP. Filaments remodeled by dynamin2 GTPase in vitro exhibit enhanced sensitivity to severing by the actin depolymerizing factor, cofilin, suggesting that GTPase-dependent remodeling influences the interactions of actin regulatory proteins and F-actin. The global organization of the actomyosin cytoskeleton was perturbed in U2-OS cells depleted of dynamin2, implicating dynamin2 in remodeling actin filaments that comprise supramolecular F-actin arrays in vivo. We conclude that dynamin2 GTPase remodels actin filaments and plays a role in orchestrating the global actomyosin cytoskeleton.Controlled assembly and disassembly of actin filaments underlies movement, shape, division, trafficking of lipids and proteins of the cell and pathogenesis by infectious bacteria and viruses. Several proteins and signaling circuits modulate actin filament dynamics, including proteins that nucleate formation of new filaments, filament cross-linking proteins that stabilize branched and bundled filament arrays, and depolymerizing factors that promote filament disassembly (1). Studies with reconstituted systems show that a single actin nucleating factor, such as the Arp2/3 complex together with a nucleation-promoting factor, a barbed end capping protein to preserve the actin monomer pool and promote nucleation, and a filament disassembly factor, such as ADF/cofilin, are sufficient to establish a dynamic dendritic actin network in vitro that mimics many properties of actin networks at the leading edge of migrating cells (2–4). However, the mechanisms for coordinating the organization and dynamics of actin filaments associated with higher-order cellular structures such as the subcortical F-actin network, F-actin at focal adhesions, and actomyosin arrays are not as well understood.Considerable evidence indicates that the large GTPase dynamin, a key mediator of membrane remodeling and fission, also influences actin filaments (reviewed in Refs. 5–7). Although the mechanisms are unknown, dynamin could influence actin filaments via its interactions with a number of proteins that directly or indirectly regulate actin filament assembly, filament stability, or filament organization. For example, several protein scaffolds biochemically link dynamin and the Arp2/3 complex activating factor, N-WASP, suggesting that the machinery for de novo actin assembly may be targeted or activated by dynamin (6, 8, 9). Dynamin2 is associated with several dynamic F-actin-containing structures in vivo, including podosomes, F-actin comet tails, phagocytic cups, dynamic cortical ruffles, and pedestal structures elaborated by enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (10–20). Cortactin, which directly binds both dynamin and actin filaments, is associated with many of the same dynamic actin structures as dynamin (5, 7) and is required for both clathrin-dependent and -independent endocytosis (21, 22). Thus, dynamin-cortactin interaction may be an important link between actin filaments and dynamin during formation or turnover of F-actin-rich structures.Considerable evidence supports the notion that GTP hydrolysis by dynamin catalyzes membrane fission activity via GTPase-dependent changes in conformation (23, 24) or via GTPase-dependent cycles of assembly and disassembly (25, 26). We hypothesize that GTPase-dependent changes in dynamin linked via its interacting proteins to actin filaments or actin regulators could similarly influence actin filaments. Overexpressed, dominant negative dynamin mutant proteins impaired in binding or hydrolyzing GTP (most often the dynamin-K44A mutation) perturb a variety of F-actin-rich cellular structures, including stress fibers and focal adhesions (27, 28), dendritic spines of neurons (29), podosomes (12, 30), actin comet tails (13, 14), phagocytic cups and bacteria-induced pedestal structures (16, 19), and dynamic cortical ruffles (15, 17). In addition, F-actin of stress fibers and overall cell morphology were perturbed in Clone9 cells expressing a mutant dynamin2 protein lacking the C-terminal proline-rich domain, the domain through which dynamin2 interacts with actin regulatory factors (11). Whereas existing data indicates that the specific effects of dynamin GTPase activity on F-actin structures are cell type- and structure-specific, a general conclusion is that dynamin GTPase activity influences the organization or turnover of a subset of actin filaments.To determine the mechanisms by which dynamin2 GTPase activity influences actin filaments, we developed biochemical and microscopic approaches to quantitatively assess and observe GTPase-dependent effects on actin filaments formed in vitro with Arp2/3 complex, cortactin, and dynamin2. The activities of dynamin2 on actin filaments in vivo were examined in cells with disrupted dynamin2 function using siRNA²-mediated suppression or pharmacologic inhibition. We report that dynamin2 GTPase, together with cortactin, functions as a dynamic actin filament remodeling complex that influences the global organization of the actomyosin cytoskeleton.     

Analysis of Free Energy Signals Arising from Nucleotide Hybridization Between rRNA and mRNA Sequences during Translation in Eubacteria

A decoding algorithm is tested that mechanistically models the progressive alignments that arise as the mRNA moves past the rRNA tail during translation elongation. Each of these alignments provides an opportunity for hybridization between the single-stranded, -terminal nucleotides of the 16S rRNA and the spatially accessible window of mRNA sequence, from which a free energy value can be calculated. Using this algorithm we show that a periodic, energetic pattern of frequency 1/3 is revealed. This periodic signal exists in the majority of coding regions of eubacterial genes, but not in the non-coding regions encoding the 16S and 23S rRNAs. Signal analysis reveals that the population of coding regions of each bacterial species has a mean phase that is correlated in a statistically significant way with species () content. These results suggest that the periodic signal could function as a synchronization signal for the maintenance of reading frame and that codon usage provides a mechanism for manipulation of signal phase.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]     

Ubiquitin-mediated Degradation of the Formin mDia2 upon Completion of Cell Division

Formins assemble non-branched actin filaments and modulate microtubule dynamics during cell migration and cell division. At the end of mitosis formins contribute to the generation of actin filaments that form the contractile ring. Rho small GTP-binding proteins activate mammalian diaphanous-related (mDia) formins by directly binding and disrupting an intramolecular autoinhibitory mechanism. Although the Rho-regulated activation mechanism is well characterized, little is known about how formins are switched off. Here we reveal a novel mechanism of formin regulation during cytokinesis based on the following observations; 1) mDia2 is degraded at the end of mitosis, 2) mDia2 is targeted for disposal by post-translational ubiquitin modification, 3) forced expression of activated mDia2 yields binucleate cells due to failed cytokinesis, and 4) the cytokinesis block is dependent upon mDia2-mediated actin assembly as versions of mDia2 incapable of nucleating actin but that still stabilize microtubules have no effect on cytokinesis. We propose that the tight control of mDia2 expression and ubiquitin-mediated degradation is essential for the completion of cell division. Because of the many roles for formins in cell morphology, we discuss the relevance of mDia protein turnover in other processes where ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis is an essential component.Formin proteins play a role in diverse processes such as cell migration (1, 2), vesicle trafficking (3, 4), tumor suppression (5, 6), and microtubule stabilization (7, 8). Formins also play an essential and conserved role in cytokinesis (9–11). Proper cell division is essential in all animals to maintain the integrity of their genome. Failure to complete cytokinesis can result in genomic instability and ultimately lead to disease such as cancer (12).The members of the mDia² family of formins are autoregulated Rho effectors that remodel the cytoskeleton by nucleating and elongating non-branched actin filaments (13). The amino terminus of mDia contains a GTPase binding domain (GBD) that directs interaction with specific Rho small GTP-binding proteins. The adjacent Dia inhibitory domain (DID) mediates mDia autoregulation through its interaction with the carboxyl-terminal diaphanous autoregulatory domain (DAD) (14, 15). Between the DID and DAD domains lie the conserved formin homology 1 (FH1) and FH2 domains. The FH1 domain is a proline-rich region that mediates binding to other proteins such as profilin, Src, and Dia-interacting protein (16–19). In contrast, the FH2 domain binds monomeric actin to generate filamentous actin (F-actin) and can also bind microtubules directly to induce their stabilization (8, 20).Although the mechanism of mDia activation is well characterized, little is known about its inactivation. Previous reports have suggested that formins can cycle between active, partially active, and inactive states (21, 22) due to GTP hydrolysis upon Rho binding to GTPase-activating proteins. Another formin inactivation mechanism is through mDia interactions with Dia-interacting protein (23). In the context of cortical actin assembly, Dia-interacting protein negatively regulates mDia2 actin polymerization but has no effect on mDia1 actin polymerization despite its ability to interact with both proteins directly (17). Because of the fundamental role for formins in cell division, we sought to identify how mDia2 is inactivated in mitosis.During cell division, the expression level and activity of many proteins (e.g. cyclins and Aurora and Polo kinases) are tightly regulated (24). A unifying regulatory mechanism among these proteins is ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis. In this study we find that mDia2 protein levels are constant from S phase into mitosis and dramatically decrease at the end of mitosis due to ubiquitin-mediated degradation. Failure to inhibit mDia2 actin assembly results in multinucleation, which supports an essential role for the tight regulation of mDia2 during cell division.     

Algorithms for Finding Small Attractors in Boolean Networks

A Boolean network is a model used to study the interactions between different genes in genetic regulatory networks. In this paper, we present several algorithms using gene ordering and feedback vertex sets to identify singleton attractors and small attractors in Boolean networks. We analyze the average case time complexities of some of the proposed algorithms. For instance, it is shown that the outdegree-based ordering algorithm for finding singleton attractors works in time for , which is much faster than the naive time algorithm, where is the number of genes and is the maximum indegree. We performed extensive computational experiments on these algorithms, which resulted in good agreement with theoretical results. In contrast, we give a simple and complete proof for showing that finding an attractor with the shortest period is NP-hard.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]     

Vinculin Nucleates Actin Polymerization and Modifies Actin Filament Structure

Vinculin links integrins to the actin cytoskeleton by binding F-actin. Little is known with respect to how this interaction occurs or affects actin dynamics. Here we assess the consequence of the vinculin tail (VT) on actin dynamics by examining its binding to monomeric and filamentous yeast actins. VT causes pyrene-labeled G-actin to polymerize in low ionic strength buffer (G-buffer), conditions that normally do not promote actin polymerization. Analysis by electron microscopy shows that, under these conditions, the filaments form small bundles at low VT concentrations, which gradually increase in size until saturation occurs at a ratio of 2 VT:1 actin. Addition of VT to pyrene-labeled mutant yeast G-actin (S265C) produced a fluorescence excimer band, which requires a relatively normal filament geometry. In higher ionic strength polymerization-promoting F-buffer, substoichiometric amounts of VT accelerate the polymerization of pyrene-labeled WT actin. However, the amplitude of the pyrene fluorescence caused by actin polymerization is quenched as the VT concentration increases without an effect on net actin polymerization as determined by centrifugation assays. Finally, addition of VT to preformed pyrene-labeled S265C F-actin causes a concentration-dependent decrease in the maximum amplitude of the pyrene fluorescence band demonstrating the ability of VT to remodel the conformation of the actin filament. These observations support the idea that vinculin can link adhesion plaques to the cytoskeleton by initiating the formation of bundled actin filaments or by remodeling existing filaments.Cell migration is critical for embryonic development, adult homeostasis, inflammatory responses, and wound healing. To migrate, a cell must coordinate a number of different inputs into appropriate cellular responses. The cell must polarize in the direction of migration and extend lamellipodial and/or filopodial protrusions. Nascent adhesions that assemble within the branched actin network of the lamellipodium must link to the underlying actin cytoskeleton. This process allows for the maturation of adhesions to structures that anchor the protrusion. These adhesions also provide the traction forces necessary to pull the cell body forward and break older adhesions at the cell rear. Perturbation of any of these events affects a cell''s migratory ability. For example, nascent adhesions that do not form linkages to the actin cytoskeleton cannot effectively anchor the protrusion to the substratum. The result is an extension that folds back upon itself, forming a membrane ruffle that cannot provide the traction forces necessary for migration.How adhesions establish links to the underlying actin cytoskeleton has been an area of intense investigation. Integrin-containing structures are active areas of actin polymerization suggesting that adhesion plaques can initiate actin filament formation (reviewed in Refs. 1–3). Focal complexes are small integrin clusters that are found exclusively at the tips of lamellipodia and filopodia. Formation of these structures is closely coupled with actin assembly in protruding regions of cells. Accumulating evidence indicates that adhesion complex components recruit the Arp2/3 complex, a potent nucleator of actin polymerization. Our work (4) and that of others (5–7) demonstrates that the Arp2/3 complex is recruited to focal complexes or transient adhesion structures reminiscent of focal complexes by binding vinculin. FAK has also been implicated in linking focal complexes to the actin cytoskeleton by virtue of its ability to recruit and activate the Arp2/3 complex (8). Furthermore, efficient focal complex assembly requires the actin-binding protein, cortactin, which could affect adhesion assembly by interacting with the Arp2/3 complex (9). Hence, many of the known mechanisms for initiating filament formation involve recruitment of the Arp2/3 complex, which initiates the formation of branched actin filaments (55). It is surprising then that the earliest detectable forms of actin-associated adhesions are interconnected by short actin bundles, not branched filaments (10). These observations suggest that our current understanding for how nascent adhesions initiate filament formation is incomplete.The earliest detectable actin-associated adhesions are “dots or doublets of dots” and are highly enriched in integrins, paxillin, and vinculin (10), suggesting that one of these molecules has the capability to initiate actin filament formation from such a plaque. Vinculin has long been implicated in linking adhesion plaques to the actin cytoskeleton by virtue of the ability of its tail to bind (11) and bundle F-actin (12). The interaction of vinculin with actin has been extensively studied from the perspective of vinculin (11, 13–23). Studies of recombinant proteins identified two regions of the vinculin tail (VT)² that bind F-actin independently (21, 17), but mapping these sites onto the VT crystal structure reveals that these peptides do not correspond to distinct sites (25). Upon binding actin, vinculin undergoes a conformational change that promotes dimerization suggesting that vinculin self-association may be important for its bundling activities (15).Less is known with respect to the effect of vinculin on actin filament formation and structure. This lack of knowledge stems from the fact that many of the early studies showed vinculin to have no effect on actin dynamics (26–28). However, these experiments were performed using chicken gizzard vinculin, which exists almost exclusively in a conformation where the actin binding sites are inaccessible, or from preparations that contain contaminants that produce false negatives (29). More recently, recombinant VT proteins were shown to cross-link and bundle actin (23). However, the interaction of vinculin with G-actin and the effect of vinculin on actin filament dynamics have not been explored. In this study, we have assessed the interaction of vinculin with pyrene-labeled wild-type and mutant yeast actins. We show that the VT can promote the formation of an actin nucleus from which filaments arise and alter the assembly and structure of actin filaments. These findings provide novel insights into how adhesion plaques may be linked to the actin cytoskeleton.     

The Wavelet-Based Cluster Analysis for Temporal Gene Expression Data

A variety of high-throughput methods have made it possible to generate detailed temporal expression data for a single gene or large numbers of genes. Common methods for analysis of these large data sets can be problematic. One challenge is the comparison of temporal expression data obtained from different growth conditions where the patterns of expression may be shifted in time. We propose the use of wavelet analysis to transform the data obtained under different growth conditions to permit comparison of expression patterns from experiments that have time shifts or delays. We demonstrate this approach using detailed temporal data for a single bacterial gene obtained under 72 different growth conditions. This general strategy can be applied in the analysis of data sets of thousands of genes under different conditions.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]     

Proinsulin and the Genetics of Diabetes Mellitus

Insulin plays a central role in the regulation of vertebrate metabolism. The hormone, the post-translational product of a single-chain precursor, is a globular protein containing two chains, A (21 residues) and B (30 residues). Recent advances in human genetics have identified dominant mutations in the insulin gene causing permanent neonatal-onset DM² (1–4). The mutations are predicted to block folding of the precursor in the ER of pancreatic β-cells. Although expression of the wild-type allele would in other circumstances be sufficient to maintain homeostasis, studies of a corresponding mouse model (5–7) suggest that the misfolded variant perturbs wild-type biosynthesis (8, 9). Impaired β-cell secretion is associated with ER stress, distorted organelle architecture, and cell death (10). These findings have renewed interest in insulin biosynthesis (11–13) and the structural basis of disulfide pairing (14–19). Protein evolution is constrained not only by structure and function but also by susceptibility to toxic misfolding.Insulin plays a central role in the regulation of vertebrate metabolism. The hormone, the post-translational product of a single-chain precursor, is a globular protein containing two chains, A (21 residues) and B (30 residues). Recent advances in human genetics have identified dominant mutations in the insulin gene causing permanent neonatal-onset DM² (1–4). The mutations are predicted to block folding of the precursor in the ER of pancreatic β-cells. Although expression of the wild-type allele would in other circumstances be sufficient to maintain homeostasis, studies of a corresponding mouse model (5–7) suggest that the misfolded variant perturbs wild-type biosynthesis (8, 9). Impaired β-cell secretion is associated with ER stress, distorted organelle architecture, and cell death (10). These findings have renewed interest in insulin biosynthesis (11–13) and the structural basis of disulfide pairing (14–19). Protein evolution is constrained not only by structure and function but also by susceptibility to toxic misfolding.     

Splitting the BLOSUM Score into Numbers of Biological Significance

Mathematical tools developed in the context of Shannon information theory were used to analyze the meaning of the BLOSUM score, which was split into three components termed as the BLOSUM spectrum (or BLOSpectrum). These relate respectively to the sequence convergence (the stochastic similarity of the two protein sequences), to the background frequency divergence (typicality of the amino acid probability distribution in each sequence), and to the target frequency divergence (compliance of the amino acid variations between the two sequences to the protein model implicit in the BLOCKS database). This treatment sharpens the protein sequence comparison, providing a rationale for the biological significance of the obtained score, and helps to identify weakly related sequences. Moreover, the BLOSpectrum can guide the choice of the most appropriate scoring matrix, tailoring it to the evolutionary divergence associated with the two sequences, or indicate if a compositionally adjusted matrix could perform better.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]     

Matricellular Protein CCN3 (NOV) Regulates Actin Cytoskeleton Reorganization

CCN3 (NOV), a putative ligand for integrin receptors, is tightly associated with the extracellular matrix and mediates diverse cellular functions, including cell adhesion and proliferation. CCN3 has been shown to negatively regulate growth although it promotes migration in a cell type-specific manner. In this study, overexpression of CCN3 reduces growth and increases intercellular adhesion of breast cancer cells. Interestingly, CCN3 overexpression also led to the formation of multiple pseudopodia that are enriched in actin, CCN3, and vinculin. Breast cancer cells preincubated with exogenous CCN3 protein also induced the same phenotype, indicating that secreted CCN3 is sufficient to induce changes in cell morphology. Surprisingly, extracellular CCN3 is internalized to the early endosomes but not to the membrane protrusions, suggesting pseudopodia-enriched CCN3 may derive from a different source. The presence of an intracellular variant of CCN3 will be consistent with our finding that the cytoplasmic tail of the gap junction protein connexin43 (Cx43) associates with CCN3. Cx43 is a channel protein permitting intercellular communication to occur. However, neither the channel properties nor the protein levels of Cx43 are affected by the CCN3 protein. In contrast, CCN3 proteins are down-regulated in the absence of Cx43. Finally, we showed that overexpression of CCN3 increases the activity of the small GTPase Rac1, thereby revealing a pathway that links Cx43 directly to actin reorganization.The CCN (CYR61/Connective Tissue Growth Factor/Nephroblastoma Overexpressed) family of multimodular proteins mediates diverse cellular functions, including cell adhesion, migration, and proliferation (1–3). Overexpression of CCN3, one of the founding members of the family, inhibits proliferation in most types of tumors such as glioblastoma and Ewing sarcoma (4, 5). Similarly, down-regulation of CCN3 has been suggested to promote melanoma progression (6). On the other hand, CCN3 can also promote migration in sarcoma and glioblastoma (4, 7), although a separate study shows that it decreases the invasion of melanoma (6). Therefore, in contrast to its role in growth suppression, the role of CCN3 signaling in cell motility is less clear.Most evidence suggests CCN3 mediates its effects by binding to the integrin proteins, such as the αVβ3 receptors (8, 9), and that CCN3 alters cell adhesion in an integrin-dependent fashion (4, 10). In melanocytes, the discoidin domain receptor 1 mediates CCN3-dependent adhesion (11). CCN3 has also been observed to associate with Notch1 (12), fibulin 1C (13), S100A4 (14), and the gap junction protein Cx43³ (15, 16), suggesting that CCN3 may also modulate cell growth via non-integrin signaling pathways.Gap junction proteins are best known for forming channels between cells, contributing to intercellular communication by allowing the exchange of small ions and molecules (17, 18). Consequently, attenuated intercellular communication has been implicated in promoting carcinogenesis (19, 20). Recent evidence has indicated that connexins can mediate channel-independent growth control through interaction of their C-terminal cytoplasmic tail with various intracellular signaling molecules (21–23). In addition, many Cx43-interacting proteins, including ZO-1 (zonula occludens-1) (24), Drebrin (25), and N-cadherin (26) associate with F-actin, thus placing Cx43 in close proximity to the actin cytoskeleton.In this study, we show for the first time that CCN3 reorganizes the actin cytoskeleton of the breast cancer cells MDA-MB-231 with the formation of multiple cell protrusions, possibly by activating the small GTPase Rac1. Our results also suggest an alternative route by which Cx43 may be functionally linked to actin cytoskeletal signaling via CCN3.     

Multipattern Consensus Regions in Multiple Aligned Protein Sequences and Their Segmentation

Decomposing a biological sequence into its functional regions is an important prerequisite to understand the molecule. Using the multiple alignments of the sequences, we evaluate a segmentation based on the type of statistical variation pattern from each of the aligned sites. To describe such a more general pattern, we introduce multipattern consensus regions as segmented regions based on conserved as well as interdependent patterns. Thus the proposed consensus region considers patterns that are statistically significant and extends a local neighborhood. To show its relevance in protein sequence analysis, a cancer suppressor gene called p53 is examined. The results show significant associations between the detected regions and tendency of mutations, location on the 3D structure, and cancer hereditable factors that can be inferred from human twin studies.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]