Regulation of dynein‐dynactin‐driven vesicular transport

Most of the long‐range intracellular movements of vesicles, organelles and other cargoes are driven by microtubule (MT)‐based molecular motors. Cytoplasmic dynein, a multisubunit protein complex, with the aid of dynactin, drives transport of a wide variety of cargoes towards the minus end of MTs. In this article, I review our current understanding of the mechanisms underlying spatiotemporal regulation of dynein‐dynactin‐driven vesicular transport with a special emphasis on the many steps of directional movement along MT tracks. These include the recruitment of dynein to MT plus ends, the activation and processivity of dynein, and cargo recognition and release by the motor complex at the target membrane. Furthermore, I summarize the most recent findings about the fine control mechanisms for intracellular transport via the interaction between the dynein‐dynactin motor complex and its vesicular cargoes.      

Endogenous GSK‐3/Shaggy Regulates Bidirectional Axonal Transport of the Amyloid Precursor Protein

Neurons rely on microtubule (MT) motor proteins such as kinesin‐1 and dynein to transport essential cargos between the cell body and axon terminus. Defective axonal transport causes abnormal axonal cargo accumulations and is connected to neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease (AD). Glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK‐3) has been proposed to be a central player in AD and to regulate axonal transport by the MT motor protein kinesin‐1. Using genetic, biochemical and biophysical approaches in Drosophila melanogaster, we find that endogenous GSK‐3 is a required negative regulator of both kinesin‐1‐mediated and dynein‐mediated axonal transport of the amyloid precursor protein (APP), a key contributor to AD pathology. GSK‐3 also regulates transport of an unrelated cargo, embryonic lipid droplets. By measuring the forces motors generate in vivo, we find that GSK‐3 regulates transport by altering the activity of kinesin‐1 motors but not their binding to the cargo. These findings reveal a new relationship between GSK‐3 and APP, and demonstrate that endogenous GSK‐3 is an essential in vivo regulator of bidirectional APP transport in axons and lipid droplets in embryos. Furthermore, they point to a new regulatory mechanism in which GSK‐3 controls the number of active motors that are moving a cargo .     

Tau directs intracellular trafficking by regulating the forces exerted by kinesin and dynein teams

Organelles, proteins, and mRNA are transported bidirectionally along microtubules by plus‐end directed kinesin and minus‐end directed dynein motors. Microtubules are decorated by microtubule‐associated proteins (MAPs) that organize the cytoskeleton, regulate microtubule dynamics and modulate the interaction between motor proteins and microtubules to direct intracellular transport. Tau is a neuronal MAP that stabilizes axonal microtubules and crosslinks them into bundles. Dysregulation of tau leads to a range of neurodegenerative diseases known as tauopathies including Alzheimer's disease (AD). Tau reduces the processivity of kinesin and dynein by acting as an obstacle on the microtubule. Single‐molecule assays indicate that kinesin‐1 is more strongly inhibited than kinesin‐2 or dynein, suggesting tau might act to spatially modulate the activity of specific motors. To investigate the role of tau in regulating bidirectional transport, we isolated phagosomes driven by kinesin‐1, kinesin‐2, and dynein and reconstituted their motility along microtubules. We find that tau biases bidirectional motility towards the microtubule minus‐end in a dose‐dependent manner. Optical trapping measurements show that tau increases the magnitude and frequency of forces exerted by dynein through inhibiting opposing kinesin motors. Mathematical modeling indicates that tau controls the directional bias of intracellular cargoes through differentially tuning the processivity of kinesin‐1, kinesin‐2, and dynein. Taken together, these results demonstrate that tau modulates motility in a motor‐specific manner to direct intracellular transport, and suggests that dysregulation of tau might contribute to neurodegeneration by disrupting the balance of plus‐ and minus‐end directed transport.      

Modeling bidirectional transport of quantum dot nanoparticles in membrane nanotubes

This paper develops a model of transport of quantum dot (QD) nanoparticles in membrane nanotubes (MNTs). It is assumed that QDs are transported inside intracellular organelles (called here nanoparticle-loaded vesicles, NLVs) that are propelled by either kinesin or dynein molecular motors while moving on microtubules (MTs). A vesicle may have both types of motors attached to it, but the motors are assumed to work in a cooperative fashion, meaning that at a given time the vesicle is moved by either kinesin or dynein motors. The motors are assumed not to work against each other, when one type of motors is pulling the vesicle, the other type is inactive. From time to time the motors may switch their roles: passive motors can become active motors and vice versa, resulting in the change of the vesicle’s direction of motion. It is further assumed that QDs can escape NLVs and become free QDs, which are then transported by diffusion. Free QDs can be internalized by NLVs. The effects of two possible types of MT orientation in MNTs are investigated: when all MTs have a uniform polarity orientation, with their plus-ends directed toward one of the cells connected by an MNT, and when MTs have a mixed polarity orientation, with half of MTs having their plus-ends directed toward one of the cells and the other half having their plus-ends directed toward the other cell. Computational results are presented for three cases. The first case is when organelles are as likely to be transported by kinesin motors as by dynein motors. The second case is when organelles are more likely to be transported by kinesin motors than by dynein motors, and the third case is when NLVs do not associate with dynein motors at all.     

Sorting of cargos between axons and dendrites: modelling of differences in cargo transport in these two types of neurites

Explaining how intracellular cargos are sorted between axons and dendrites is important for a mechanistic understanding of what happens in many neurodegenerative disorders. A simple model of cargo sorting relies on differences in microtubule (MT) orientation between axons and dendrites: in mammalian neurons all MTs in axons have their plus ends directed outward while in proximal regions of dendrites the MT polarity is mixed. It can therefore be assumed that cargos that need to be driven into axons associate with kinesin motors while cargos that need to be driven into dendrites associate with dynein motors. This paper develops equations of cargo transport in axons and dendrites based on the above assumptions. Propagation of a pulse of radiolabelled cargos entering an axon and dendrite is simulated. The model equations are solved utilising the Laplace transform method. Differences in cargo transport between axons and dendrites are discussed.     

Load‐dependent detachment kinetics plays a key role in bidirectional cargo transport by kinesin and dynein

Bidirectional cargo transport along microtubules is carried out by opposing teams of kinesin and dynein motors. Despite considerable study, the factors that determine whether these competing teams achieve net anterograde or retrograde transport in cells remain unclear. The goal of this work is to use stochastic simulations of bidirectional transport to determine the motor properties that most strongly determine overall cargo velocity and directionality. Simulations were carried out based on published optical tweezer characterization of kinesin‐1 and kinesin‐2, and for available data for cytoplasmic dynein and the dynein‐dynactin‐BicD2 (DDB) complex. By varying dynein parameters and analyzing cargo trajectories, we find that net cargo transport is predicted to depend minimally on the dynein stall force, but strongly on dynein load‐dependent detachment kinetics. In simulations, dynein is dominated by kinesin‐1, but DDB and kinesin‐1 are evenly matched, recapitulating recent experimental work. Kinesin‐2 competes less well against dynein and DDB, and overall, load‐dependent motor detachment is the property that most determines a motor's ability to compete in bidirectional transport. It follows that the most effective intracellular regulators of bidirectional transport are predicted to be those that alter motor detachment kinetics rather than motor velocity or stall force.      

Directed attachment of antibodies to kinesin‐powered molecular shuttles

Biomolecular motors, such as kinesin, have been used to shuttle a range of biological and synthetic cargo in microfluidic architectures. A critical gap in this technology is the ability to controllably link macromolecular cargo on microtubule (MT) shuttles without forming extraneous byproducts that may potentially limit their application. Here we present a generalized approach for functionalizing MTs with antibodies in which covalent bonds are formed between the carbohydrate in F_c region of polyclonal antibodies and the positively charged amino acids on the MT surface using the crosslinker succinimidyl 4‐hydrazidoterephthalate hydrochloride (SHTH). Antibody‐functionalized MTs (Ab‐MTs) produced through this approach maintained motility characteristics and antigenic selectivity, and did not produce undesirable byproducts common to other approaches. We also demonstrate and characterize the application of these Ab‐MTs for capturing and transporting bacterial and viral antigens. While this approach cannot be applied to monoclonal antibodies, which lack a carbohydrate moiety, it may be used for selectively functionalizing MT shuttles with a variety of carbohydrate‐containing cargoes. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2009; 104: 1182–1188. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

A Highlights from MBoC Selection: Regulation of microtubule-based transport by MAP4

Microtubule (MT)-based transport of organelles driven by the opposing MT motors kinesins and dynein is tightly regulated in cells, but the underlying molecular mechanisms remain largely unknown. Here we tested the regulation of MT transport by the ubiquitous protein MAP4 using Xenopus melanophores as an experimental system. In these cells, pigment granules (melanosomes) move along MTs to the cell center (aggregation) or to the periphery (dispersion) by means of cytoplasmic dynein and kinesin-2, respectively. We found that aggregation signals induced phosphorylation of threonine residues in the MT-binding domain of the Xenopus MAP4 (XMAP4), thus decreasing binding of this protein to MTs. Overexpression of XMAP4 inhibited pigment aggregation by shortening dynein-dependent MT runs of melanosomes, whereas removal of XMAP4 from MTs reduced the length of kinesin-2–dependent runs and suppressed pigment dispersion. We hypothesize that binding of XMAP4 to MTs negatively regulates dynein-dependent movement of melanosomes and positively regulates kinesin-2–based movement. Phosphorylation during pigment aggregation reduces binding of XMAP4 to MTs, thus increasing dynein-dependent and decreasing kinesin-2–dependent motility of melanosomes, which stimulates their accumulation in the cell center, whereas dephosphorylation of XMAP4 during dispersion has an opposite effect.     

Mechanical coupling of microtubule-dependent motor teams during peroxisome transport in Drosophila S2 cells

BackgroundIntracellular transport requires molecular motors that step along cytoskeletal filaments actively dragging cargoes through the crowded cytoplasm. Here, we explore the interplay of the opposed polarity motors kinesin-1 and cytoplasmic dynein during peroxisome transport along microtubules in Drosophila S2 cells.MethodsWe used single particle tracking with nanometer accuracy and millisecond time resolution to extract quantitative information on the bidirectional motion of organelles. The transport performance was studied in cells expressing a slow chimeric plus-end directed motor or the kinesin heavy chain. We also analyzed the influence of peroxisomes membrane fluidity in methyl-β-ciclodextrin treated cells. The experimental data was also confronted with numerical simulations of two well-established tug of war scenarios.Results and conclusionsThe velocity distributions of retrograde and anterograde peroxisomes showed a multimodal pattern suggesting that multiple motor teams drive transport in either direction. The chimeric motors interfered with the performance of anterograde transport and also reduced the speed of the slowest retrograde team. In addition, increasing the fluidity of peroxisomes membrane decreased the speed of the slowest anterograde and retrograde teams.General significanceOur results support the existence of a crosstalk between opposed-polarity motor teams. Moreover, the slowest teams seem to mechanically communicate with each other through the membrane to trigger transport.     

An RNA‐binding atypical tropomyosin recruits kinesin‐1 dynamically to oskar mRNPs

Localization and local translation of oskar mRNA at the posterior pole of the Drosophila oocyte directs abdominal patterning and germline formation in the embryo. The process requires recruitment and precise regulation of motor proteins to form transport‐competent mRNPs. We show that the posterior‐targeting kinesin‐1 is loaded upon nuclear export of oskar mRNPs, prior to their dynein‐dependent transport from the nurse cells into the oocyte. We demonstrate that kinesin‐1 recruitment requires the DmTropomyosin1‐I/C isoform, an atypical RNA‐binding tropomyosin that binds directly to dimerizing oskar 3′UTRs. Finally, we show that a small but dynamically changing subset of oskar mRNPs gets loaded with inactive kinesin‐1 and that the motor is activated during mid‐oogenesis by the functionalized spliced oskar RNA localization element. This inefficient, dynamic recruitment of Khc decoupled from cargo‐dependent motor activation constitutes an optimized, coordinated mechanism of mRNP transport, by minimizing interference with other cargo‐transport processes and between the cargo‐associated dynein and kinesin‐1.     

Microtubule‐binding protein doublecortin‐like kinase 1 (DCLK1) guides kinesin‐3‐mediated cargo transport to dendrites

In neurons, the polarized distribution of vesicles and other cellular materials is established through molecular motors that steer selective transport between axons and dendrites. It is currently unclear whether interactions between kinesin motors and microtubule‐binding proteins can steer polarized transport. By screening all 45 kinesin family members, we systematically addressed which kinesin motors can translocate cargo in living cells and drive polarized transport in hippocampal neurons. While the majority of kinesin motors transport cargo selectively into axons, we identified five members of the kinesin‐3 (KIF1) and kinesin‐4 (KIF21) subfamily that can also target dendrites. We found that microtubule‐binding protein doublecortin‐like kinase 1 (DCLK1) labels a subset of dendritic microtubules and is required for KIF1‐dependent dense‐core vesicles (DCVs) trafficking into dendrites and dendrite development. Our study demonstrates that microtubule‐binding proteins can provide local signals for specific kinesin motors to drive polarized cargo transport.     

Bicaudal‐D binds clathrin heavy chain to promote its transport and augments synaptic vesicle recycling

Cargo transport by microtubule‐based motors is essential for cell organisation and function. The Bicaudal‐D (BicD) protein participates in the transport of a subset of cargoes by the minus‐end‐directed motor dynein, although the full extent of its functions is unclear. In this study, we report that in Drosophila zygotic BicD function is only obligatory in the nervous system. Clathrin heavy chain (Chc), a major constituent of coated pits and vesicles, is the most abundant protein co‐precipitated with BicD from head extracts. BicD binds Chc directly and interacts genetically with components of the pathway for clathrin‐mediated membrane trafficking. Directed transport and subcellular localisation of Chc is strongly perturbed in BicD mutant presynaptic boutons. Functional assays show that BicD and dynein are essential for the maintenance of normal levels of neurotransmission specifically during high‐frequency electrical stimulation and that this is associated with a reduced rate of recycling of internalised synaptic membrane. Our results implicate BicD as a new player in clathrin‐associated trafficking processes and show a novel requirement for microtubule‐based motor transport in the synaptic vesicle cycle.     

mNUDC is required for plus‐end‐directed transport of cytoplasmic dynein and dynactins by kinesin‐1

Lissencephaly is a devastating neurological disorder caused by defective neuronal migration. The LIS1 (or PAFAH1B1) gene was identified as the gene mutated in lissencephaly patients, and was found to regulate cytoplasmic dynein function and localization. In particular, LIS1 is essential for anterograde transport of cytoplasmic dynein as a part of the cytoplasmic dynein–LIS1–microtubule complex in a kinesin‐1‐dependent manner. However, the underlying mechanism by which a cytoplasmic dynein–LIS1–microtubule complex binds kinesin‐1 is unknown. Here, we report that mNUDC (mammalian NUDC) interacts with kinesin‐1 and is required for the anterograde transport of a cytoplasmic dynein complex by kinesin‐1. mNUDC is also required for anterograde transport of a dynactin‐containing complex. Inhibition of mNUDC severely suppressed anterograde transport of distinct cytoplasmic dynein and dynactin complexes, whereas motility of kinesin‐1 remained intact. Reconstruction experiments clearly demonstrated that mNUDC mediates the interaction of the dynein or dynactin complex with kinesin‐1 and supports their transport by kinesin‐1. Our findings have uncovered an essential role of mNUDC for anterograde transport of dynein and dynactin by kinesin‐1.     

MAPping out distribution routes for kinesin couriers

In the crowded environment of eukaryotic cells, diffusion is an inefficient distribution mechanism for cellular components. Long‐distance active transport is required and is performed by molecular motors including kinesins. Furthermore, in highly polarised, compartmentalised and plastic cells such as neurons, regulatory mechanisms are required to ensure appropriate spatio‐temporal delivery of neuronal components. The kinesin machinery has diversified into a large number of kinesin motor proteins as well as adaptor proteins that are associated with subsets of cargo. However, many mechanisms contribute to the correct delivery of these cargos to their target domains. One mechanism is through motor recognition of sub‐domain‐specific microtubule (MT) tracks, sign‐posted by different tubulin isoforms, tubulin post‐translational modifications, tubulin GTPase activity and MT‐associated proteins (MAPs). With neurons as a model system, a critical review of these regulatory mechanisms is presented here, with a particular focus on the emerging contribution of compartmentalised MAPs. Overall, we conclude that – especially for axonal cargo – alterations to the MT track can influence transport, although in vivo, it is likely that multiple track‐based effects act synergistically to ensure accurate cargo distribution.     

A requirement for cytoplasmic dynein and dynactin in intermediate filament network assembly and organization

We present evidence that vimentin intermediate filament (IF) motility in vivo is associated with cytoplasmic dynein. Immunofluorescence reveals that subunits of dynein and dynactin are associated with all structural forms of vimentin in baby hamster kidney-21 cells. This relationship is also supported by the presence of numerous components of dynein and dynactin in IF-enriched cytoskeletal preparations. Overexpression of dynamitin biases IF motility toward the cell surface, leading to a perinuclear clearance of IFs and their redistribution to the cell surface. IF-enriched cytoskeletal preparations from dynamitin-overexpressing cells contain decreased amounts of dynein, actin-related protein-1, and p150Glued relative to controls. In contrast, the amount of dynamitin is unaltered in these preparations, indicating that it is involved in linking vimentin cargo to dynactin. The results demonstrate that dynein and dynactin are required for the normal organization of vimentin IF networks in vivo. These results together with those of previous studies also suggest that a balance among the microtubule (MT) minus and plus end-directed motors, cytoplasmic dynein, and kinesin are required for the assembly and maintenance of type III IF networks in interphase cells. Furthermore, these motors are to a large extent responsible for the long recognized relationships between vimentin IFs and MTs.     

Interactions and regulation of molecular motors in Xenopus melanophores

Many cellular components are transported using a combination of the actin- and microtubule-based transport systems. However, how these two systems work together to allow well-regulated transport is not clearly understood. We investigate this question in the Xenopus melanophore model system, where three motors, kinesin II, cytoplasmic dynein, and myosin V, drive aggregation or dispersion of pigment organelles called melanosomes. During dispersion, myosin V functions as a "molecular ratchet" to increase outward transport by selectively terminating dynein-driven minus end runs. We show that there is a continual tug-of-war between the actin and microtubule transport systems, but the microtubule motors kinesin II and dynein are likely coordinated. Finally, we find that the transition from dispersion to aggregation increases dynein-mediated motion, decreases myosin V--mediated motion, and does not change kinesin II--dependent motion. Down-regulation of myosin V contributes to aggregation by impairing its ability to effectively compete with movement along microtubules.     

Effect of fuel concentration and force on collective transport by a team of dynein motors

Motor proteins are essential components of intracellular transport inside eukaryotic cells. These protein molecules use chemical energy obtained from hydrolysis of ATP to produce mechanical forces required for transporting cargos inside cells, from one location to another, in a directed manner. Of these motors, cytoplasmic dynein is structurally more complex than other motor proteins involved in intracellular transport, as it shows force and fuel (ATP) concentration dependent step‐size. Cytoplasmic dynein motors are known to work in a team during cargo transport and force generation. Here, we use a complete Monte‐Carlo model of single dynein constrained by in vitro experiments, which includes the effect of both force and ATP on stepping as well as detachment of motors under force. We then use our complete Monte‐Carlo model of single dynein motor to understand collective cargo transport by a team of dynein motors, such as dependence of cargo travel distance and velocity on applied force and fuel concentration. In our model, cargos pulled by a team of dynein motors do not detach rapidly under higher forces, confirming the experimental observation of longer persistence time of dynein team on microtubule under higher forces.     

Dynactin polices two-way organelle traffic

How is the bidirectional motion of organelles controlled? In this issue, Deacon et al. (2003) reveal the unexpected finding that dynactin (previously known to control dynein-based motility) binds to kinesin II and regulates anterograde movement of Xenopus melanosomes. This result suggests that dynactin may be a key player in coordinating vesicle traffic in this system.The movement of intracellular cargo is essential for cell survival. In animal cells, membranous organelles are propelled through the cytoplasm by microtubule-based motor proteins. Anterograde movement toward microtubule plus ends at the cell periphery is driven by motor proteins of the kinesin superfamily, whereas retrograde movement toward minus ends at the cell center is largely accomplished by cytoplasmic dynein. In most cells, organelles do not travel smoothly in one direction but frequently switch between plus and minus end–directed travel. The net time spent traveling in the plus versus the minus end direction determines the steady-state distribution of an organelle population within a cell. A long-standing question for those studying organelle transport is how this bidirectional trafficking is coordinated. Is the binding of kinesin and dynein to vesicles mutually exclusive, or are these motors bound at the same time but with their activities coordinately regulated? What molecule(s) might be responsible for linking kinesin and dynein activities? In this issue, Vladimir Gelfand''s group (Deacon et al., 2003) addresses these questions by studying the motor proteins kinesin II and cytoplasmic dynein that move pigment granules in Xenopus melanophore cells. Their results are surprising; the dynactin complex, previously known to bind to cytoplasmic dynein and anchor it to organelles, also interacts with kinesin II and is necessary for plus end–directed motion. The ability of dynactin to physically interact with these two opposite polarity motors suggests that it may be the long sought-after molecular switch that coordinates bidirectional movement in this system.Previous studies hinted that the actions of dynein and kinesin may be controlled via dynactin. Dynactin is a large, multimeric protein complex. Its p150^Glued subunit has binding sites for both microtubules and the intermediate chain of dynein and is thought to be responsible for the association of dynein with many of its cargo organelles (Karki and Holzbaur, 1995; Vaughan and Vallee, 1995; Waterman-Storer et al., 1995). Curiously, the treatment of extruded squid axoplasm with antibodies against p150^Glued inhibited both the anterograde and retrograde movement of organelles along microtubules (Waterman-Storer et al., 1997). These antibodies were known to inhibit the interaction of dynactin with dynein, but their effect on anterograde movement was more difficult to explain. However, genetic studies yielded similar results. Martin et al. (1999) found that mutations in either p150^Glued, the cytoplasmic dynein heavy chain, or kinesin I inhibited both retrograde and anterograde fast axonal transport in Drosophila larvae. This phenotype potentially could be explained by stalled retrograde vesicles sterically blocking the movement of anterograde cargo, but the authors also suggested the possibility of a physical linkage between kinesin, dynein, and dynactin. This theory was further tested by tracking the movement of lipid droplets in Drosophila embryos (Gross et al., 2002b). A mild defect in the dynein heavy chain impaired several aspects of minus end–directed transport of lipid droplets: run lengths, velocities, and the opposing optical trap force required to halt droplet movement were all decreased. Surprisingly, this mutation produced similar effects on droplets moving toward the microtubule plus ends. Embryos expressing a mutant p150^Glued protein that partially impaired dynactin function also exhibited impaired movement in both the plus and minus end directions. Collectively, these results suggested that dynactin might be involved in coordinating the bidirectional movement of organelles. However, these studies did not provide a molecular explanation of how this mechanism might work.To study the mechanism of coordination of bidirectional vesicle movement, Deacon et al. (2003) used Xenopus melanophores due to the unique ability to experimentally control the directional movement of their pigmented melanosomes (Daniolos et al., 1990). Upon treatment of melanophores with melatonin, the cAMP concentration in the cytoplasm drops and the melanosomes move with a net minus end–directed bias and aggregate toward the cell center. Treatment with melanocyte-stimulating hormone (MSH)^* restores cAMP levels, and the melanosomes exhibit a plus end–directed bias and disperse throughout the cell. Aggregation is accomplished by cytoplasmic dynein (Nilsson and Wallin, 1997), whereas dispersion requires the combined actions of kinesin II and the actin-based motor myosin V (Rogers and Gelfand, 1998; Tuma et al., 1998; Gross et al., 2002a). Kinesin II is a heterotrimeric protein consisting of two motor subunits and a third nonmotor subunit known as kinesin-associated protein (KAP) (Cole et al., 1992). KAP is thought to be involved in binding kinesin II to its cargo, although the mechanism for this interaction is not known.The role of dynactin in melanosome transport was investigated by disrupting dynactin function via the overexpression of dynamitin (Echeverri et al., 1996), a crucial subunit that holds the dynactin complex together. To ensure that all observed melanosome movement occurred on the microtubule cytoskeleton, actin filaments were depolymerized with latrunculin B. Here, the authors report that melanosome movement to both the plus and minus ends of microtubules was inhibited by dynamitin overexpression, suggesting a role for dynactin in coordinating bidirectional movement. They considered whether this result might be explained if both kinesin II and dynein bound to dynactin and thereby docked onto membranes. To test this idea, kinesin II was immunoprecipitated with a series of antibodies, and the authors found that dynactin was pulled down along with this kinesin motor in all cases. The reverse experiment of immunoprecipitating with p150^Glued antibodies also brought down kinesin II. Blot overlays of purified melanosomes with p150^Glued detected an interaction with a 115-kD protein, the expected size of Xenopus KAP. Subsequent overlay and affinity pull-down experiments with purified proteins confirmed the direct binding of p150^Glued to KAP. By constructing a series of GST fusion proteins, Deacon et al. (2003) were able to map the site of this interaction to residues 600–811 of p150^Glued and the COOH-terminal domain of KAP. Interestingly, this region of p150^Glued also interacts with the dynein intermediate chain, which raised the question of whether kinesin II and dynein might compete for binding to dynactin. Using a blot overlay competition assay, the authors found that the COOH-terminal KAP domain blocked the binding of p150^Glued to the dynein intermediate chain, whereas the NH₂-terminal KAP domain, used as a control, did not. This result confirms that the two motors cannot bind dynactin simultaneously.If these biochemical results are relevant to melanosome movement, then overexpression of KAP should inhibit both anterograde and retrograde traffic. Indeed, overexpession of Xenopus KAP or just its COOH-terminal fragment inhibited bidirectional melanosome movement. As a control, NH₂-terminal KAP had no effect on retrograde movement and only a small effect on anterograde movement, perhaps due to interactions with the kinesin II motor subunits. Together, the results of Deacon et al. (2003) demonstrate that kinesin II, via its KAP subunit, binds to the p150^Glued subunit of dynactin and that this interaction is important for kinesin II–mediated movement of melanosomes.Although the authors identify the p150^Glued subunit of dynactin as a key player in coordinating the bidirectional movement of melanosomes, the mechanism is still unclear. Their biochemical results showing competitive binding to dynactin suggest that binding of kinesin II and dynein to melanosomes may be mutually exclusive events; however, previous work has shown that this is not the case. In a recent paper from the same authors (Gross et al., 2002a), as well as an earlier study from Reese and Haimo (Reese and Haimo, 2000), the relative amounts of kinesin II and dynein bound to purified melanosomes did not change when cells were treated with melatonin to stimulate aggregation or with MSH to stimulate dispersion. Thus, it is possible that proteins other than dynactin might bind kinesin II and dynein to melanosomes. This question also could be addressed by determining if motor binding to melanophores is diminished in cells overexpressing KAP or dynamitin. Unfortunately, Deacon et al. (2003) were not able to answer this question by biochemical isolation of melanosomes and motor quantitation because transfected cells were only a small percentage of the total population. Another possible model is that dynactin is not needed for recruiting kinesin II and dynein to melanosomes but is somehow involved in regulating the activation or organization of motors already bound to the membrane.Future studies will no doubt explore whether dynactin is involved in bidirectional transport in systems other than melanophores. In intraflagellar transport, kinesin II and cytoplasmic dynein 2 are involved in moving nonmembranous particles between the cell body and the tip of the flagella or cilia (Rosenbaum and Witman, 2002). It will be interesting to determine whether dynactin plays a role in this type of cargo transport. In neurons, kinesin I is responsible for moving organelles from the cell body to the axon terminal. As discussed above, Martin et al. (1999) found that mutations in either kinesin I heavy chain, dynein, or p150^Glued all produced the same phenotype in Drosophila larvae neurons, suggesting that dynactin may play a role in coordinating bidirectional movement in this system as well. Immunoprecipitation of neuronal p150^Glued, however, brought down only dynein but not kinesin I. This finding may result from the fact that kinesin I, which possesses a light chain unrelated to the KAP subunit, could be linked indirectly to dynactin by another protein. Thus, this study by Deacon et al. (2003) has opened up a new area of exploration and dynactin will undoubtedly receive closer scrutiny from kinesin researchers in the future.     

Retrograde but not anterograde bead movement in intact axons requires dynein

Dynein and kinesin have been implicated as the molecular motors that are responsible for the fast transport of axonal membranous organelles and vesicles. Experiments performed in vitro with partially reconstituted preparations have led to the hypothesis that kinesin moves organelles in the anterograde direction and dynein moves them in the retrograde direction. However, the molecular basis of transport directionality remains unclear. In the experiments described here, carboxylated fluorescent beads were injected into living Mauthner axons of lamprey and the beads were observed to move in both the anterograde and retrograde directions. The bead movement in both directions required intact microtubules, occurred at velocities approaching organelle fast transport in vivo, and was inhibited by vanadate at concentrations that inhibit organelle fast transport. When living axons were injected with micromolar concentrations of vanadate and irradiated at 365 nm prior to bead injections, a treatment that results in the V1 photolysis of dynein, the retrograde movement of the beads was specifically abolished. Neither the ultraviolet irradiation alone nor the vanadate alone produced the retrograde-specific inhibition. These results support the hypothesis that dynein is required for retrograde, but not anterograde, transport in vivo. © 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Microtubule-associated proteins in higher plants

A variety of microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs) have been reported in higher plants. Microtubule (MT) polymerization starts from the γ-tubulin complex (γTuC), a component of the MT nucleation site. MAP200/MOR1 and katanin regulate the length of the MT by promoting the dynamic instability of MTs and cutting MTs, respectively. In construction of different MT structures, MTs are bundled or are associated with other components—actin filaments, the plasma membrane, and organelles. The MAP65 family and some of kinesin family are important in bundling MTs. MT plus-end-tracking proteins (+TIPs) including end-binding protein 1 (EB1), Arabidopsis thaliana kinesin 5 (ATK5), and SPIRAL 1 (SPR1) localize to the plus end of MTs. It has been suggested that +TIPs are involved in binding of MT to other structures. Phospholipase D (PLD) is a possible candidate responsible for binding of MTs to the plasma membrane. Many candidates have been reported as actin-binding MAPs, for example calponin-homology domain (KCH) family kinesin, kinesin-like calmodulin-binding protein (KCBP), and MAP190. RNA distribution and translation depends on MT structures, and several RNA-related MAPs have been reported. This article gives an overview of predicted roles of these MAPs in higher plants.