How capping protein binds the barbed end of the actin filament

Cytoskeletal filaments are often capped at one end, regulating assembly and cellular location. The actin filament is a right-handed, two-strand long-pitch helix. The ends of the two protofilaments are staggered in relation to each other, suggesting that capping could result from one protein binding simultaneously to the ends of both protofilaments. Capping protein (CP), a ubiquitous alpha/beta heterodimer in eukaryotes, tightly caps (K(d) approximately 0.1-1 nM) the barbed end of the actin filament (the end favored for polymerization), preventing actin subunit addition and loss. CP is critical for actin assembly and actin-based motility in vivo and is an essential component of the dendritic nucleation model for actin polymerization at the leading edge of cells. However, the mechanism by which CP caps actin filaments is not well understood. The X-ray crystal structure of CP has inspired a model where the C termini ( approximately 30 amino acids) of the alpha and beta subunits of CP are mobile extensions ("tentacles"), and these regions are responsible for high-affinity binding to, and functional capping of, the barbed end. We tested the tentacle model in vitro with recombinant mutant CPs. Loss of both tentacles causes a complete loss of capping activity. The alpha tentacle contributes more to capping affinity and kinetics; its removal reduces capping affinity by 5000-fold and the on-rate of capping by 20-fold. In contrast, removal of the beta tentacle reduced the affinity by only 300-fold and did not affect the on-rate. These two regions are not close to each other in the three-dimensional structure, suggesting CP uses two independent actin binding tentacles to cap the barbed end. CP with either tentacle alone can cap, as can the isolated beta tentacle alone, suggesting that the individual tentacles interact with more than one actin subunit at a subunit interface at the barbed end.     

The dynamic instability of actin filament barbed ends

The turnover of actin filament networks in cells has long been considered to reflect the treadmilling behavior of pure actin filaments in vitro, where only the pointed ends depolymerize. Newly discovered molecular mechanisms challenge this notion, as they provide evidence of situations in which growing and depolymerizing barbed ends coexist.

IntroductionIn cells, actin assembles into filament networks with diverse architectures and lifetimes, playing key roles in functions such as endocytosis, cell motility, and cell division. These filament networks are maintained and renewed by actin turnover, which implies that assembly and disassembly must take place simultaneously and in a controlled manner within the networks. Each actin filament end has the ability to either grow or shrink, depending on the concentration of actin and regulatory proteins, but pure actin treadmills at steady state: ATP-actin is added at the barbed end at a rate matching the departure of ADP-actin from the pointed end, and ATP hydrolysis takes place within the filament. This hallmark feature of actin dynamics has been known for decades (Wegner, 1976) and has been generalized to the cell context, in which it is commonly assumed that actin polymerization takes place at the barbed end, while depolymerization takes place only at the pointed end (whether it be the ends of filaments within the network or the ends of fragments that have detached from it). This notion is reinforced by the fact that the cytoplasm contains high concentrations of monomeric actin (G-actin) in complex with profilin (Funk et al., 2019), which is unable to bind to pointed ends and should drive the elongation of all noncapped barbed ends.Recently, however, in vitro studies have identified two seemingly independent mechanisms in which, in the presence of profilin-actin, filament barbed ends alternate between phases of growth and depolymerization. This behavior, referred to as “dynamic instability,” is widely observed for microtubules but was unexpected for actin filaments. It suggests that cells could use barbed ends for both elongation and disassembly.Driving the depolymerization of barbed ends with cofilin side-decorationProteins of the actin depolymerizing factor (ADF)/cofilin family (henceforth cofilin) are composed of a single ADF-homology (ADF-H) domain and are mostly known for their actin filament–severing activity (De La Cruz, 2009). Cofilin binds cooperatively to the sides of actin filaments, forming clusters where the conformation of the filament is locally altered, leading to its severing at cofilin cluster boundaries. In addition, the barbed ends of cofilin-decorated filaments steadily depolymerize, despite the presence of G-actin and profilin-actin (Fig. 1 A) and even capping protein (CP) in solution (Wioland et al., 2017, 2019). This unexpected result likely originates from the conformational change of actin subunits at the barbed end, induced by cofilin side-binding. As a consequence, filaments exposed to G-actin (with or without profilin), CP, and cofilin alternate between phases of barbed-end elongation and barbed-end depolymerization. In these conditions, actin filament barbed ends thus exhibit a form of dynamic instability.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Two mechanisms that give rise to barbed-end depolymerization in elongation-promoting conditions. (A) When a cofilin side-decorated region reaches the barbed end, adding a new actin or profilin-actin becomes very difficult, and the barbed end depolymerizes. Not represented: Capping by CP can lead to depolymerization, as it allows the cofilin cluster to reach the barbed end, which then has a much weaker affinity for CP and steadily depolymerizes. Also, severing events occur at cofilin cluster boundaries, creating new barbed ends, either bare or cofilin-decorated. (B) Twinfilin binds to the barbed end, preventing its elongation and causing its depolymerization. Whether twinfilin remains processively attached to the depolymerizing barbed end or departs with the actin subunits is still unknown. Twinfilin has no impact on the elongation of mDia1-bearing barbed ends.Driving the depolymerization of barbed ends with twinfilin end-targetingTwinfilin has two ADF-H domains, but unlike cofilin, it binds poorly to the sides of actin filaments. Rather, twinfilin appears to mainly sequester ADP-actin monomers and target the barbed end to modulate its elongation and capping. Recent in vitro studies have shown that the interaction of twinfilin with actin filament barbed ends could drive their depolymerization, even in the presence of G-actin and profilin-actin (Johnston et al., 2015; Hakala et al., 2021; Shekhar et al., 2021). Very interestingly, the processive barbed-end elongator formin mDia1 is able to protect barbed ends from twinfilin, allowing them to sustain elongation (Shekhar et al., 2021). This leads to a situation in which, as filaments are exposed to profilin-actin and twinfilin, mDia1-bearing barbed ends elongate while bare barbed ends depolymerize (Fig. 1 B). It is safe to assume that, if filaments were continuously exposed to this protein mix including formin in solution, they would alternate between phases of growth and shrinkage over time, as formins come on and fall off the barbed end. This mix of proteins would therefore constitute another situation causing actin filament dynamic instability.From actin treadmilling to dynamic instability, in cells?This newly identified versatile behavior of actin filaments is reminiscent of microtubules. While dynamic instability is the hallmark behavior of microtubules, they can also be made to treadmill steadily by adding 4 microtubule-associated proteins (Arpağ et al., 2020). In cells, both microtubule dynamic instability and treadmilling have been clearly observed (Wittmann et al., 2003). In contrast, the disassembly of single actin filaments, either embedded in a network or severed from it, has not yet been directly observed in cells. Despite insights from techniques such as single-molecule speckle microscopy, it is still unclear from which end actin filaments depolymerize, even in networks that appear to globally treadmill, such as the lamellipodium. Pointed end depolymerization alone cannot account for what is observed in cells (Miyoshi et al., 2006) and alternative mechanisms have been proposed, including brutal filament-to-monomer transitions occurring in bursts, driven by cofilin, coronin, and Aip1 (Brieher, 2013; Tang et al., 2020).In cells, the high amounts of available G-actin (tens of micromolars; Funk et al., 2019) should limit barbed-end depolymerization. Based on the reported on-rate for ATP–G-actin at the barbed ends of cofilin-decorated filaments (Wioland et al., 2017, 2019), we can estimate that these barbed ends, under such conditions, would depolymerize for tens of seconds before being “rescued,” which is enough to remove tens of subunits from each filament. In contrast, twinfilin concentrations similar to those of G-actin appear necessary to drive barbed-end depolymerization (Hakala et al., 2021; Shekhar et al., 2021). As proteomics studies in HeLa cells report that twinfilin is 50-fold less abundant than actin, this may be difficult to achieve in cells (Bekker-Jensen et al., 2017). However, future studies may uncover proteins, or posttranslational modifications of actin, that enhance the ability of twinfilin to drive barbed-end depolymerization in the presence of high concentrations of profilin-actin.Molecular insights and possible synergiesWhile cofilin and twinfilin both interact with actin via ADF-H domains, they appear to drive barbed-end depolymerization through different mechanisms: twinfilin by directly targeting the barbed end, and cofilin by decorating the filament sides, thereby changing the conformation of the filament and putting its barbed end in a depolymerization-prone state.The two mechanisms, nonetheless, share clear similarities. For instance, cofilin side-binding and twinfilin end-targeting both slow down ADP-actin barbed-end depolymerization, compared with bare ADP-actin filaments (Wioland et al., 2017; Hakala et al., 2021; Shekhar et al., 2021). Strikingly, a crystal structure of the actin/twinfilin/CP complex indicates that the actin conformational change induced by twinfilin binding at the barbed end is similar to that induced by cofilin decorating the sides (Mwangangi et al., 2021). It is thus possible that the dynamic instability of actin filament barbed ends reflects the same conformation changes, triggered either by cofilin side-decoration or twinfilin end-targeting.In addition to decorating the filament sides, cofilin targets ADP-actin barbed ends. Unlike twinfilin, the direct interaction of cofilin with the barbed end cannot cause its depolymerization in the presence of ATP-actin monomers. Indeed, cofilin end-targeting accelerates the depolymerization of ADP-actin barbed ends in the absence of G-actin, but cofilin does not appear to interact with growing ATP-actin barbed ends (Wioland et al., 2017). This is in stark contrast with twinfilin end-targeting, which slows down ADP-actin depolymerization and accelerates ADP–Pi-actin depolymerization (Shekhar et al., 2021). These different behaviors regarding the nucleotide state of actin are intriguing and should be investigated further.Cofilin thus needs to decorate the filament sides in order to have an impact on barbed-end dynamics in elongation-promoting conditions. However, it is unknown whether cofilin side-decoration extends all the way to the terminal subunits and occupies sites that twinfilin would target. Thus, it is unclear whether cofilin and twinfilin would compete or synergize to drive barbed-end depolymerization.Synergies with other proteins are also worth further investigation, CP being an interesting candidate. Cofilin side-decoration drastically decreases the barbed-end affinity for CP, and capped filaments are thereby an efficient intermediate to turn growing barbed ends into depolymerizing barbed ends (Wioland et al., 2017). Twinfilin interacts with CP and the barbed end to enhance uncapping (Hakala et al., 2021; Mwangangi et al., 2021). Since CP can bind mDia1-bearing barbed ends and displace mDia1 (Bombardier et al., 2015; Shekhar et al., 2015), perhaps CP can also contribute to turn growing, mDia1-bearing barbed ends into depolymerizing barbed ends, by removing mDia1 from barbed ends and subsequently getting displaced from the barbed end by twinfilin.Finally, it is worth noting that profilin, which does not contain an ADF-H domain, also interacts with the barbed face of G-actin and with the barbed end of the filament. When profilin is in sufficient excess, it is able to promote barbed-end depolymerization in the presence of ATP–G-actin (Pernier et al., 2016). Unlike twinfilin, its depolymerization-promoting activity is not prevented by formin mDia1, and it thus does not lead to dynamic instability (bare and mDia1-bearing barbed ends all either grow or depolymerize). The coexistence of growing, mDia1-bearing barbed ends and depolymerizing, twinfilin-targeted barbed ends (Fig. 1 B) was observed in the presence of profilin (Shekhar et al., 2021), but profilin actually may not be required. Future studies should determine the exact role of profilin in this mechanism.ConclusionThe extent to which barbed-end dynamic instability contributes to actin turnover in cells is not known, but possible molecular mechanisms have now been identified. They should change the way we envision actin network dynamics, as we must now consider the possibility that cells also exploit the barbed end for disassembly. More work is needed to further document these mechanisms, but the idea of a “generalized treadmilling” has now been contradicted at its source: in vitro experiments.     

Dynamics of capping protein and actin assembly in vitro: uncapping barbed ends by polyphosphoinositides

Bursts of actin polymerization in vivo involve the transient appearance of free barbed ends. To determine how rapidly barbed ends might appear and how long they might remain free in vivo, we studied the kinetics of capping protein, the major barbed end capper, binding to barbed ends in vitro. First, the off-rate constant for capping protein leaving a barbed end is slow, predicting a half-life for a capped barbed end of approximately 30 min. This half-life implies that cells cannot wait for capping protein to spontaneously dissociate from capped barbed ends in order to create free barbed ends. However, we find that phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate (PIP2) and phosphatidylinositol 4- mono-phosphate (PIP) cause rapid and efficient dissociation of capping protein from capped filaments. PIP2 is a strong candidate for a second messenger regulating actin polymerization; therefore, the ability of PIP2 to remove capping protein from barbed ends is a potential mechanism for stimulating actin polymerization in vivo. Second, the on- rate constant for capping protein binding to free barbed ends predicts that actin filaments could grow to the length of filaments observed in vivo during one lifetime. Third, capping protein beta-subunit isoforms did not differ in their actin binding properties, even in tests with different actin isoforms. A major hypothesis for why capping protein beta-subunit isoforms exist is thereby excluded. Fourth, the proposed capping protein regulators, Hsc70 and S100, had no effect on capping protein binding to actin in vitro.     

The interaction of capping protein with the barbed end of the actin filament

The interaction of capping protein (CP) with actin filaments is an essential element of actin assembly and actin-based motility in nearly all eukaryotes. The dendritic nucleation model for Arp2/3-based lamellipodial assembly features capping of barbed ends by CP, and the formation of filopodia is proposed to involve inhibition of capping by formins and other proteins. To understand the molecular basis for how CP binds the barbed end of the actin filament, we have used a combination of computational and experimental approaches, primarily involving molecular docking and site-directed mutagenesis. We arrive at a model that supports all of our biochemical data and agrees very well with a cryo-electron microscopy structure of the capped filament. CP interacts with both actin protomers at the barbed end of the filament, and the amphipathic helix at the C-terminus of the β-subunit binds to the hydrophobic cleft on actin, in a manner similar to that of WH2 domains. These studies provide us with new molecular insight into how CP binds to the actin filament.     

Ena/VASP proteins capture actin filament barbed ends

Ena/VASP (vasodialator-stimulated protein) proteins regulate many actin-dependent events, including formation of protrusive structures, fibroblast migration, neurite extension, cell-cell adhesion, and Listeria pathogenesis. In vitro, Ena/VASP activities on actin are complex and varied. They promote actin assembly, protect filaments from cappers, bundle filaments, and inhibit filament branching. To determine the mechanisms by which Ena/VASP proteins regulate actin dynamics at barbed ends, we monitored individual actin filaments growing in the presence of VASP and profilin using total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy. Filament growth was unchanged by VASP, but filaments grew faster in profilin-actin and VASP than with profilin-actin alone. Actin filaments were captured directly by VASP-coated surfaces via interactions with growing barbed ends. End-attached filaments transiently paused but resumed growth after becoming bound to the surface via a filament side attachment. Thus, Ena/VASP proteins promote actin assembly by interacting directly with actin filament barbed ends, recruiting profilin-actin, and blocking capping.     

Mammalian CARMIL inhibits actin filament capping by capping protein

Actin polymerization in cells occurs via filament elongation at the barbed end. Proteins that cap the barbed end terminate this elongation. Heterodimeric capping protein (CP) is an abundant and ubiquitous protein that caps the barbed end. We find that the mouse homolog of the adaptor protein CARMIL (mCARMIL) binds CP with high affinity and decreases its affinity for the barbed end. Addition of mCARMIL to cell extracts increases the rate and extent of Arp2/3 or spectrin-actin seed-induced polymerization. In cells, GFP-mCARMIL concentrates in lamellipodia and increases the fraction of cells with large lamellipodia. Decreasing mCARMIL levels by siRNA transfection lowers the F-actin level and slows cell migration through a mechanism that includes decreased lamellipodia protrusion. This phenotype is reversed by full-length mCARMIL but not mCARMIL lacking the domain that binds CP. Thus, mCARMIL is a key regulator of CP and has profound effects on cell behavior.     

Equilibrium constant for binding of an actin filament capping protein to the barbed end of actin filaments

Depolymerization of treadmilling actin filaments by a capping protein isolated from bovine brain was used for determination of the equilibrium constant for binding of the capping protein to the barbed ends of actin filaments. When the capping protein blocks monomer consumption at the lengthening barbed ends, monomers continue to be produced at the shortening pointed ends until a new steady state is reached in which monomer production at the pointed ends is balanced by monomer consumption at the uncapped barbed ends. In this way the ratio of capped to uncapped filaments could be determined as a function of the capping protein concentration. Under the experimental conditions (100 mM KCl and 2 mM MgCl2, pH 7.5, 37 degrees C) the binding constant was found to be about 2 X 10(9) M-1. Capping proteins effect the actin monomer concentration only at capping protein concentrations far above the reciprocal of their binding constant. Half-maximal increase of the monomer concentration requires capping of about 99% of the actin filaments. A low proportion of uncapped filaments has a great weight in determining the monomer concentration because association and dissociation reactions occur at the dynamic barbed ends with higher frequencies than at the pointed ends.     

Eps8 controls actin-based motility by capping the barbed ends of actin filaments

Actin filament barbed-end capping proteins are essential for cell motility, as they regulate the growth of actin filaments to generate propulsive force. One family of capping proteins, whose prototype is gelsolin, shares modular architecture, mechanism of action, and regulation through signalling-dependent mechanisms, such as Ca(2+) or phosphatidylinositol-4,5-phosphate binding. Here we show that proteins of another family, the Eps8 family, also show barbed-end capping activity, which resides in their conserved carboxy-terminal effector domain. The isolated effector domain of Eps8 caps barbed ends with an affinity in the nanomolar range. Conversely, full-length Eps8 is auto-inhibited in vitro, and interaction with the Abi1 protein relieves this inhibition. In vivo, Eps8 is recruited to actin dynamic sites, and its removal impairs actin-based propulsion. Eps8-family proteins do not show any similarity to gelsolin-like proteins. Thus, our results identify a new family of actin cappers, and unveil novel modalities of regulation of capping through protein-protein interactions. One established function of the Eps8-Abi1 complex is to participate in the activation of the small GTPase Rac, suggesting a multifaceted role for this complex in actin dynamics, possibly through the participation in alternative larger complexes.     

Rate constant for capping of the barbed ends of actin filaments by the gelsolin-actin complex

The rate of capping of actin filaments by the gelsolin-actin complex was measured by inhibition of elongation of the barbed ends of actin filaments. Polymeric actin (0.1-1.0 microM) was added to 0.5 microM monomeric actin and various concentrations of the gelsolin-actin complex (0.08-2.4 nM) to induce nucleated polymerization. As under the experimental conditions (2 mM MgCl2, 100 mM KCl, 37 degrees C, actin monomer concentration less than or equal to 0.5 microM) actin filaments treadmilled, filaments elongated only at the barbed ends and the gelsolin-actin complex did not nucleate actin filaments to polymerize towards the pointed ends. The rate of nucleated actin polymerization in the presence of the gelsolin-actin complex was quantitatively analyzed. The rate constant for capping of the barbed ends of actin filaments by the gelsolin-actin complex was found to be about 10(7) M-1 s-1.     

Role of the N- and C-terminal actin-binding domains of gelsolin in barbed filament end capping.

Gelsolin is a bivalent Ca(2+)-modulated actin-binding protein that severs, nucleates, and caps filaments. In order to gain a better understanding of the capping mechanism we have studied N- and C-terminal gelsolin fragments, 14NT and 41CT, each of which contains a single functional actin-binding site. The very tight binding measured between gelsolin and the barbed filament end requires gelsolin to greatly decrease the dissociation rate constant of the terminal actin from this end. A mechanism that could account for the observed decrease in dissociation is one in which gelsolin links two actin monomers so that they dissociate more slowly as a dimer. This cannot be the only mechanism, however, since, as shown here, 14NT and 41CT, fragments with single actin-binding sites, decrease the dissociation rate of the capped terminal actin molecule. The observations suggest that these fragments induce a conformational change in the actin monomer that either increases the affinity or alters the kinetics of the terminal actin-actin bond. The available data argue for strengthening of the terminal actin-actin bond.     

Crystal structure of CapZ: structural basis for actin filament barbed end capping

Capping protein, a heterodimeric protein composed of alpha and beta subunits, is a key cellular component regulating actin filament assembly and organization. It binds to the barbed ends of the filaments and works as a 'cap' by preventing the addition and loss of actin monomers at the end. Here we describe the crystal structure of the chicken sarcomeric capping protein CapZ at 2.1 A resolution. The structure shows a striking resemblance between the alpha and beta subunits, so that the entire molecule has a pseudo 2-fold rotational symmetry. CapZ has a pair of mobile extensions for actin binding, one of which also provides concomitant binding to another protein for the actin filament targeting. The mobile extensions probably form flexible links to the end of the actin filament with a pseudo 2(1) helical symmetry, enabling the docking of the two in a symmetry mismatch.     

The fission yeast cytokinesis formin Cdc12p is a barbed end actin filament capping protein gated by profilin

Cytokinesis in most eukaryotes requires the assembly and contraction of a ring of actin filaments and myosin II. The fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe requires the formin Cdc12p and profilin (Cdc3p) early in the assembly of the contractile ring. The proline-rich formin homology (FH) 1 domain binds profilin, and the FH2 domain binds actin. Expression of a construct consisting of the Cdc12 FH1 and FH2 domains complements a conditional mutant of Cdc12 at the restrictive temperature, but arrests cells at the permissive temperature. Cells overexpressing Cdc12(FH1FH2)p stop growing with excessive actin cables but no contractile rings. Like capping protein, purified Cdc12(FH1FH2)p caps the barbed end of actin filaments, preventing subunit addition and dissociation, inhibits end to end annealing of filaments, and nucleates filaments that grow exclusively from their pointed ends. The maximum yield is one filament pointed end per six formin polypeptides. Profilins that bind both actin and poly-l-proline inhibit nucleation by Cdc12(FH1FH2)p, but polymerization of monomeric actin is faster, because the filaments grow from their barbed ends at the same rate as uncapped filaments. On the other hand, Cdc12(FH1FH2)p blocks annealing even in the presence of profilin. Thus, formins are profilin-gated barbed end capping proteins with the ability to initiate actin filaments from actin monomers bound to profilin. These properties explain why contractile ring assembly requires both formin and profilin and why viability depends on the ability of profilin to bind both actin and poly-l-proline.     

Arabidopsis capping protein (AtCP) is a heterodimer that regulates assembly at the barbed ends of actin filaments

The precise regulation of actin filament polymerization and depolymerization is essential for many cellular processes and is choreographed by a multitude of actin-binding proteins (ABPs). In higher plants the number of well characterized ABPs is quite limited, and some evidence points to significant differences in the biochemical properties of apparently conserved proteins. Here we provide the first evidence for the existence and biochemical properties of a heterodimeric capping protein from Arabidopsis thaliana (AtCP). The purified recombinant protein binds to actin filament barbed ends with Kd values of 12-24 nM, as assayed both kinetically and at steady state. AtCP prevents the addition of profilin actin to barbed ends during a seeded elongation reaction and suppresses dilution-mediated depolymerization. It does not, however, sever actin filaments and does not have a preference for the source of actin. During assembly from Mg-ATP-actin monomers, AtCP eliminates the initial lag period for actin polymerization and increases the maximum rate of polymerization. Indeed, the efficiency of actin nucleation of 0.042 pointed ends created per AtCP polypeptide compares favorably with mouse CapZ, which has a maximal nucleation of 0.17 pointed ends per CapZ polypeptide. AtCP activity is not affected by calcium but is sensitive to phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate. We propose that AtCP is a major regulator of actin dynamics in plant cells that, together with abundant profilin, is responsible for maintaining a large pool of actin subunits and a surprisingly small population of F-actin.     

ADP-ribosylated actin caps the barbed ends of actin filaments

The mode of action on actin polymerization of skeletal muscle actin ADP-ribosylated on arginine 177 by perfringens iota toxin was investigated. ADP-ribosylated actin decreased the rate of nucleated actin polymerization at substoichiometric ratios of ADP-ribosylated actin to monomeric actin. ADP-ribosylated actin did not tend to copolymerize with actin. Actin filaments were depolymerized by the addition of ADP-ribosylated actin. The maximal monomer concentration reached by addition of ADP-ribosylated actin was similar to the critical concentration of the pointed ends of actin filaments. ADP-ribosylated actin had no effect on the rate of polymerization of gelsolin-capped actin filaments which polymerize at the pointed ends. The results suggest that ADP-ribosylated actin acts as a capping protein which binds to the barbed ends of actin filaments to inhibit polymerization. Based on an analysis of the depolymerizing effect of ADP-ribosylated actin, the equilibrium constant for binding of ADP-ribosylated actin to the barbed ends of actin filaments was determined to be about 10(8) M-1. As actin is ADP-ribosylated by perfringens iota toxin and by botulinum C2 toxin, it appears that conversion of actin into a capping protein by ADP-ribosylation is a pathophysiological reaction catalyzed by bacterial toxins which ultimately leads to inhibition of actin assembly.     

Direct observation of the conformational states of formin mDia1 at actin filament barbed ends and along the filament

The fine regulation of actin polymerization is essential to control cell motility and architecture and to perform essential cellular functions. Formins are key regulators of actin filament assembly, known to processively elongate filament barbed ends and increase their polymerization rate. Different models have been extrapolated to describe the molecular mechanism governing the processive motion of formin FH2 domains at polymerizing barbed ends. Using negative stain electron microscopy, we directly identified for the first time two conformations of the mDia1 formin FH2 domains in interaction with the barbed ends of actin filaments. These conformations agree with the speculated open and closed conformations of the “stair-stepping” model. We observed the FH2 dimers to be in the open conformation for 79% of the data, interacting with the two terminal actin subunits of the barbed end while they interact with three actin subunits in the closed conformation. In addition, we identified and characterized the structure of single FH2 dimers encircling the core of actin filaments, and reveal their ability to spontaneously depart from barbed ends.     

The Arp2/3 complex branches filament barbed ends: functional antagonism with capping proteins

The Arp2/3 complex is an essential regulator of actin polymerization in response to signalling and generates a dendritic array of filaments in lamellipodia. Here we show that the activated Arp2/3 complex interacts with the barbed ends of filaments to initiate barbed-end branching. Barbed-end branching by Arp2/3 quantitatively accounts for polymerization kinetics and for the length correlation of the branches of filaments observed by electron microscopy. Filament branching is visualized at the surface of Listeria in a reconstituted motility assay. The functional antagonism between the Arp2/3 complex and capping proteins is essential in the maintenance of the steady state of actin assembly and actin-based motility.     

Spectrin and protein 4.1 as an actin filament capping complex

Spectrin and protein 4.1, when added to G- or F-actin, cause the formation of short filaments, as judged by the appearance of powerful nucleating activity for G-actin polymerisation. F-Actin filaments are rapidly fragmented under physiological solvent conditions. The effect of cytochalasin E on the polymerisation reaction and the extent of reduction in the critical monomer concentration of actin when spectrin and 4.1 are added suggest that these proteins form a capping system for the more slowly growing, or 'pointed' ends of actin filaments. The interaction is not affected by calcium or by 4.9, the remaining constituent of the purified red cell membrane cytoskeleton.     

Molecular biology of gelsolin, a calcium-regulated actin filament severing protein

Gelsolin is a Ca2+-binding protein of mammalian leukocytes, platelets and other cells which has multiple and closely regulated powerful effects on actin. In the presence of micromolar Ca2+, gelsolin severs actin filaments, causing profound changes in the consistency of actin polymer networks. A variant of gelsolin containing a 25-amino acid extension at the NH2-terminus is present in plasma where it may be involved in the clearance of actin filaments released during tissue damage. Gelsolin has two sites which bind actin cooperatively. These sites have been localized using proteolytic cleavage and monoclonal antibody mapping techniques. The NH2-terminal half of the molecule contains a Ca2+-insensitive actin severing domain while the COOH-terminal half contains a Ca2+-sensitive actin binding domain which does not sever filaments. These data suggest that the NH2-terminal severing domain in intact gelsolin is influenced by the Ca2+-regulated COOH-terminal half of the molecule. The primary structure of gelsolin, deduced from human plasma gelsolin cDNA clones, supports the existence of actin binding domains and suggests that these may have arisen from a gene duplication event, and diverged subsequently to adopt their respective unique functions. The plasma and cytoplasmic forms of gelsolin are encoded by a single gene, and preliminary results indicate that separate mRNAs code for the two forms. Further application of molecular biological techniques will allow exploration into the structural basis for the multifunctionality of gelsolin, as well as the molecular basis for the genesis of the cytoplasmic and secreted forms of gelsolin.     

Capping protein binding to S100B: implications for the tentacle model for capping the actin filament barbed end

S100B binds tightly to a 12-amino acid peptide derived from heterodimeric capping protein. In native intact capping protein, this sequence is in the C terminus of the alpha-subunit, which is important for capping the actin filament. This C-terminal region is proposed to act as a flexible "tentacle," extending away from the body of capping protein in order to bind actin. To this hypothesis, we analyzed the interaction between S100B and capping protein in solution. The C-terminal 28 amino acids of the alpha-subunit, the proposed tentacle, bound to S100B as a free synthetic peptide or a glutathione S-transferase fusion (K(d) approximately 0.4-1 microm). In contrast, S100B did not bind to whole native capping protein or functionally affect its capping activity. S100B does not bind, with any significant affinity, to the proposed alpha-tentacle sequence of whole native capping protein in solution. In the NMR structure of S100B complexed with the alpha-subunit-derived 12-amino acid peptide, the hydrophobic side of a short alpha-helix in the peptide, containing an important tryptophan residue, contacts S100B. In the x-ray structure of native capping protein, the corresponding sequence of the alpha-subunit C terminus, including Trp(271), interacts closely with the body of the protein. Therefore, our results suggest the alpha-subunit C terminus is not mobile as predicted by the tentacle model. Addition of non-ionic detergent allowed whole capping protein to bind weakly to S100B, indicating that the alpha-subunit C terminus can be mobilized from the surface of the capping protein molecule, presumably by weakening the hydrophobic binding at the contact site.