Capping Protein Modulates the Dynamic Behavior of Actin Filaments in Response to Phosphatidic Acid in Arabidopsis

Remodeling of actin filament arrays in response to biotic and abiotic stimuli is thought to require precise control over the generation and availability of filament ends. Heterodimeric capping protein (CP) is an abundant filament capper, and its activity is inhibited by membrane signaling phospholipids in vitro. How exactly CP modulates the properties of filament ends in cells and whether its activity is coordinated by phospholipids in vivo is not well understood. By observing directly the dynamic behavior of individual filament ends in the cortical array of living Arabidopsis thaliana epidermal cells, we dissected the contribution of CP to actin organization and dynamics in response to the signaling phospholipid, phosphatidic acid (PA). Here, we examined three cp knockdown mutants and found that reduced CP levels resulted in more dynamic activity at filament ends, and this significantly enhanced filament-filament annealing and filament elongation from free ends. The cp mutants also exhibited more dense actin filament arrays. Treatment of wild-type cells with exogenous PA phenocopied the actin-based defects in cp mutants, with an increase in the density of filament arrays and enhanced annealing frequency. These cytoskeletal responses to exogenous PA were completely abrogated in cp mutants. Our data provide compelling genetic evidence that the end-capping activity of CP is inhibited by membrane signaling lipids in eukaryotic cells. Specifically, CP acts as a PA biosensor and key transducer of fluxes in membrane signaling phospholipids into changes in actin cytoskeleton dynamics.     

Arabidopsis actin depolymerizing factor4 modulates the stochastic dynamic behavior of actin filaments in the cortical array of epidermal cells

Actin filament arrays are constantly remodeled as the needs of cells change as well as during responses to biotic and abiotic stimuli. Previous studies demonstrate that many single actin filaments in the cortical array of living Arabidopsis thaliana epidermal cells undergo stochastic dynamics, a combination of rapid growth balanced by disassembly from prolific severing activity. Filament turnover and dynamics are well understood from in vitro biochemical analyses and simple reconstituted systems. However, the identification in living cells of the molecular players involved in controlling actin dynamics awaits the use of model systems, especially ones where the power of genetics can be combined with imaging of individual actin filaments at high spatial and temporal resolution. Here, we test the hypothesis that actin depolymerizing factor (ADF)/cofilin contributes to stochastic filament severing and facilitates actin turnover. A knockout mutant for Arabidopsis ADF4 has longer hypocotyls and epidermal cells when compared with wild-type seedlings. This correlates with a change in actin filament architecture; cytoskeletal arrays in adf4 cells are significantly more bundled and less dense than in wild-type cells. Several parameters of single actin filament turnover are also altered. Notably, adf4 mutant cells have a 2.5-fold reduced severing frequency as well as significantly increased actin filament lengths and lifetimes. Thus, we provide evidence that ADF4 contributes to the stochastic dynamic turnover of actin filaments in plant cells.     

Roles of CONSTITUTIVE PHOTOMORPHOGENIC 10 in Arabidopsis stomata development

Stomata are epidermal bi-celled structures that differentiate within special cell lineages initiated by a subset of protodermal cells. Recently, we showed that the Arabidopsis photomorphogenic repressor COP10 controls specific cell-lineage and cell-signaling developmental mechanisms in stomatal lineages. Loss-of-function cop10-1 mutant cotyledons and leaves produced (in the light and in the dark) abundant stomatal clusters, but nonlineage epidermal cells were not affected. Here we examine COP10 role in hypocotyls, cylindrical organs displaying a distinct epidermal organization with alternate files of protruding and non-protruding cells, with the latter producing a limited number of stomata. COP10 prevents stomatal clusters and restricts stomata production in hypocotyls; these roles are specific to lineage cells as in cotyledons, since COP10 loss of function does not elicit stomatal fate in nonlineage cells; COP10 also sustains the directional cell expansion of all hypocotyl epidermal cell types, and seems necessary for the differentiation between protruding and non-protruding cell files.     

Pivotal and distinct role for Plasmodium actin capping protein alpha during blood infection of the malaria parasite

Accurate regulation of microfilament dynamics is central to cell growth, motility and response to environmental stimuli. Stabilizing and depolymerizing proteins control the steady‐state levels of filamentous (F‐) actin. Capping protein (CP) binds to free barbed ends, thereby arresting microfilament growth and restraining elongation to remaining free barbed ends. In all CPs characterized to date, alpha and beta subunits form the active heterodimer. Here, we show in a eukaryotic parasitic cell that the two CP subunits can be functionally separated. Unlike the beta subunit, the CP alpha subunit of the apicomplexan parasite Plasmodium is refractory to targeted gene deletion during blood infection in the mammalian host. Combinatorial complementation of Plasmodium berghei CP genes with the orthologs from Plasmodium falciparum verified distinct activities of CP alpha and CP alpha/beta during parasite life cycle progression. Recombinant Plasmodium CP alpha could be produced in Escherichia coli in the absence of the beta subunit and the protein displayed F‐actin capping activity. Thus, the functional separation of two CP subunits in a parasitic eukaryotic cell and the F‐actin capping activity of CP alpha expand the repertoire of microfilament regulatory mechanisms assigned to CPs.     

Ena/VASP proteins enhance actin polymerization in the presence of barbed end capping proteins

Ena/VASP proteins influence the organization of actin filament networks within lamellipodia and filopodia of migrating cells and in actin comet tails. The molecular mechanisms by which Ena/VASP proteins control actin dynamics are unknown. We investigated how Ena/VASP proteins regulate actin polymerization at actin filament barbed ends in vitro in the presence and absence of barbed end capping proteins. Recombinant His-tagged VASP increased the rate of actin polymerization in the presence of the barbed end cappers, heterodimeric capping protein (CP), CapG, and gelsolin-actin complex. Profilin enhanced the ability of VASP to protect barbed ends from capping by CP, and this required interactions of profilin with G-actin and VASP. The VASP EVH2 domain was sufficient to protect barbed ends from capping, and the F-actin and G-actin binding motifs within EVH2 were required. Phosphorylation by protein kinase A at sites within the VASP EVH2 domain regulated anti-capping and F-actin bundling by VASP. We propose that Ena/VASP proteins associate at or near actin filament barbed ends, promote actin assembly, and restrict the access of barbed end capping proteins.     

Heterodimeric Capping Protein from Arabidopsis Is a Membrane-Associated,Actin-Binding Protein

The actin cytoskeleton is a major regulator of cell morphogenesis and responses to biotic and abiotic stimuli. The organization and activities of the cytoskeleton are choreographed by hundreds of accessory proteins. Many actin-binding proteins are thought to be stimulus-response regulators that bind to signaling phospholipids and change their activity upon lipid binding. Whether these proteins associate with and/or are regulated by signaling lipids in plant cells remains poorly understood. Heterodimeric capping protein (CP) is a conserved and ubiquitous regulator of actin dynamics. It binds to the barbed end of filaments with high affinity and modulates filament assembly and disassembly reactions in vitro. Direct interaction of CP with phospholipids, including phosphatidic acid, results in uncapping of filament ends in vitro. Live-cell imaging and reverse-genetic analyses of cp mutants in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) recently provided compelling support for a model in which CP activity is negatively regulated by phosphatidic acid in vivo. Here, we used complementary biochemical, subcellular fractionation, and immunofluorescence microscopy approaches to elucidate CP-membrane association. We found that CP is moderately abundant in Arabidopsis tissues and present in a microsomal membrane fraction. Sucrose density gradient separation and immunoblotting with known compartment markers were used to demonstrate that CP is enriched on membrane-bound organelles such as the endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi. This association could facilitate cross talk between the actin cytoskeleton and a wide spectrum of essential cellular functions such as organelle motility and signal transduction.The cellular levels of membrane-associated lipids undergo dynamic changes in response to developmental and environmental stimuli. Different species of phospholipids target specific proteins and this often affects the activity and/or subcellular localization of these lipid-binding proteins. One such membrane lipid, phosphatidic acid (PA), serves as a second messenger and regulates multiple developmental processes in plants, including seedling development, root hair growth and pattern formation, pollen tube growth, leaf senescence, and fruit ripening. PA levels also change during various stress responses, including high salinity and dehydration, pathogen attack, and cold tolerance (Testerink and Munnik, 2005, 2011; Wang, 2005; Li et al., 2009). In mammalian cells, PA is critical for vesicle trafficking events, such as vesicle budding from the Golgi apparatus, vesicle transport, exocytosis, endocytosis, and vesicle fusion (Liscovitch et al., 2000; Freyberg et al., 2003; Jenkins and Frohman, 2005).The actin cytoskeleton and a plethora of actin-binding proteins (ABPs) are well-known targets and transducers of lipid signaling (Drøbak et al., 2004; Saarikangas et al., 2010; Pleskot et al., 2013). For example, several ABPs have the ability to bind phosphoinositide lipids, such as phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate [PtdIns(4,5)P₂]. The severing or actin filament depolymerizing proteins such as villin, cofilin, and profilin are inhibited when bound to PtdIns(4,5)P₂. One ABP appears to be strongly regulated by another phospholipid; human gelsolin binds to lysophosphatidic acid and its filament severing and barbed-end capping activities are inhibited by this biologically active lipid (Meerschaert et al., 1998). Gelsolin is not, however, regulated by PA (Meerschaert et al., 1998), nor are profilin (Lassing and Lindberg, 1985), α-actinin (Fraley et al., 2003), or chicken CapZ (Schafer et al., 1996).The heterodimeric capping protein (CP) from Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) also binds to and its activity is inhibited by phospholipids, including both PtdIns(4,5)P₂ and PA (Huang et al., 2003, 2006). PA and phospholipase D activity have been implicated in the actin-dependent tip growth of root hairs and pollen tubes (Ohashi et al., 2003; Potocký et al., 2003; Samaj et al., 2004; Monteiro et al., 2005a; Pleskot et al., 2010). Exogenous application of PA causes an elevation of actin filament levels in suspension cells, pollen, and Arabidopsis epidermal cells (Lee et al., 2003; Potocký et al., 2003; Huang et al., 2006; Li et al., 2012; Pleskot et al., 2013). Capping protein (CP) binds to the barbed end of actin filaments with high (nanomolar) affinity, dissociates quite slowly, and prevents the addition of actin subunits at this end (Huang et al., 2003, 2006; Kim et al., 2007). In the presence of phospholipids, AtCP is not able to bind to the barbed end of actin filaments (Huang et al., 2003, 2006). Furthermore, capped filament ends are uncapped by the addition of PA, allowing actin assembly from a pool of profilin-actin (Huang et al., 2006). Collectively, these data lead to a simple model whereby CP, working in concert with profilin-actin, serves to maintain tight regulation of actin assembly at filament barbed ends (Huang et al., 2006; Blanchoin et al., 2010; Henty-Ridilla et al., 2013; Pleskot et al., 2013). Furthermore, the availability of CP for filament ends can be modulated by fluxes in signaling lipids. Genetic evidence for this model was recently obtained by analyzing the dynamic behavior of actin filament ends in living Arabidopsis epidermal cells after treatment with exogenous PA (Li et al., 2012). Specifically, changes in the architecture of cortical actin arrays and dynamics of individual actin filaments that are induced by PA treatment were found to be attenuated in cp mutant cells (Li et al., 2012; Pleskot et al., 2013).Structural characterization of chicken CapZ demonstrates that the α- and β-subunits of the heterodimer form a compact structure resembling a mushroom with pseudo-two-fold rotational symmetry (Yamashita et al., 2003). Actin- and phospholipid-binding sites are conserved on the C-terminal regions, sometimes referred to as tentacles, which comprise amphipathic α-helices (Cooper and Sept, 2008; Pleskot et al., 2012). Coarse-grained molecular dynamics (CG-MD) simulations recently revealed the mechanism of chicken and AtCP association with membranes (Pleskot et al., 2012). AtCP interacts specifically with lipid bilayers through interactions between PA and the amphipathic helix of the α-subunit tentacle. Extensive polar contacts between lipid headgroups and basic residues on CP (including K278, which is unique to plant CP), as well as partial embedding of nonpolar groups into the lipid bilayer, are observed (Pleskot et al., 2012). Moreover, a glutathione S-transferase fusion protein containing the C-terminal 38 amino acids from capping protein α subunit (CPA) is sufficient to bind PA-containing liposomes in vitro (Pleskot et al., 2012). Collectively, these findings lead us to predict that AtCP will behave like a membrane-associated protein in plant cells.Additional evidence from animal and microbial cells supports the association of CP with biological membranes. In Acanthamoeba castellanii, CP is localized primarily to the hyaline ectoplasm in a region of the cytoplasm just under the plasma membrane that contains a high concentration of actin filaments (Cooper et al., 1984). Localization of CP with regions rich in actin filaments and with membranes was supported by subcellular fractionation experiments, in which CP was associated with a crude membrane fraction that included plasma membrane (Cooper et al., 1984). Further evidence demonstrates that CP localizes to cortical actin patches at sites of new cell wall growth in budding yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), including the site of bud emergence. By contrast, CP did not colocalize with actin cables in S. cerevisiae (Amatruda and Cooper, 1992). CP may localize to these sites by direct interactions with membrane lipids, through binding the ends of actin filaments, or by association with another protein different from actin. In support of this hypothesis, GFP-CP fusion proteins demonstrate that sites of actin assembling in living cells contain both CP and the actin-related protein2/3 (Arp2/3) complex, and CP is located in two types of structures: (1) motile regions of the cell periphery, which reflect movement of the edge of the lamella during extension and ruffling; and (2) dynamic spots within the lamella (Schafer et al., 1998). CP has been colocalized to the F-actin patches in fission yeast (Schizosaccharomyces pombe; Kovar et al., 2005), which promotes Arp2/3-dependent nucleation and branching and limits the extent of filament elongation (Akin and Mullins, 2008). These findings lend additional support for a model whereby CP cooperates with the Arp2/3 complex to regulate actin dynamics (Nakano and Mabuchi, 2006). Activities and localization of other plant ABPs are linked to membranes. Membrane association has been linked to the assembly status of the ARP2/3 complex, an actin filament nucleator, in Arabidopsis (Kotchoni et al., 2009). SPIKE1 (SPK1), a Rho of plants (Rop)-guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) and peripheral membrane protein, maintains the homeostasis of the early secretory pathway and signal integration during morphogenesis through specialized domains in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER; Zhang et al., 2010). Furthermore, Nck-associated protein1 (NAP1), a component of the suppressor of cAMP receptor/WASP-family verprolin homology protein (SCAR/WAVE) complex, strongly associates with membranes and is particularly enriched in ER membranes (Zhang et al., 2013a). Finally, a superfamily of plant ABPs, called NETWORKED proteins, was recently discovered; these link the actin cytoskeleton to various cellular membranes (Deeks et al., 2012; Hawkins et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014).In this work, we demonstrate that CP is a membrane-associated protein in Arabidopsis. To our knowledge, this is the first direct evidence for CP-membrane association in plants. This interaction likely targets CP to cellular compartments such as the ER and Golgi. This unique location may allow CP to remodel the actin cytoskeleton in the vicinity of endomembrane compartments and/or to respond rapidly to fluxes in signaling lipids.     

Clusters of a Few Bound Cofilins Sever Actin Filaments

Cofilin is an essential actin filament severing protein that accelerates the assembly dynamics and turnover of actin networks by increasing the number of filament ends where subunits add and dissociate. It binds filament subunits stoichiometrically and cooperatively, forming clusters of contiguously-bound cofilin at sub-saturating occupancies. Filaments partially occupied with cofilin sever at boundaries between bare and cofilin-decorated segments. Imaging studies concluded that bound clusters must reach a critical size (C_c) of 13–100 cofilins to sever filaments. In contrast, structural and modeling studies suggest that a few or even a single cofilin can sever filaments, possibly with different severing rate constants. How clusters grow through the cooperative incorporation of additional cofilin molecules, specifically if they elongate asymmetrically or uniformly from both ends and if they are modulated by filament shape and external force, also lacks consensus. Here, using hydrodynamic flow to visualize individual actin filaments with TIRF microscopy, we found that neither flow-induced filament bending, tension, nor surface attachment conditions substantially affected the kinetics of cofilin binding to actin filaments. Clusters of bound cofilin preferentially extended toward filament pointed ends and displayed severing competency at small sizes (C_c < 3), with no detectable severing dependence on cluster size. These data support models in which small clusters of cofilin introduce local, but asymmetric, structural changes in actin filaments that promote filament severing with a rate constant that depends weakly on the size of the cluster.     

Capping protein is essential for cell migration in vivo and for filopodial morphology and dynamics

Capping protein (CP) binds to barbed ends of growing actin filaments and inhibits elongation. CP is essential for actin-based motility in cell-free systems and in Dictyostelium. Even though CP is believed to be critical for creating the lamellipodial actin structure necessary for protrusion and migration, CP''s role in mammalian cell migration has not been directly tested. Moreover, recent studies have suggested that structures besides lamellipodia, including lamella and filopodia, may have unappreciated roles in cell migration. CP has been postulated to be absent from filopodia, and thus its role in filopodial activity has remained unexplored. We report that silencing CP in both cultured mammalian B16F10 cells and in neurons of developing neocortex impaired cell migration. Moreover, we unexpectedly observed that low levels of CP were detectable in the majority of filopodia. CP depletion decreased filopodial length, altered filopodial shape, and reduced filopodial dynamics. Our results support an expansion of the potential roles that CP plays in cell motility by implicating CP in filopodia as well as in lamellipodia, both of which are important for locomotion in many types of migrating cells.     

Capping Protein Terminates but Does Not Initiate Chemoattractant-induced Actin Assembly in Dictyostelium

The first step in the directed movement of cells toward a chemotactic source involves the extension of pseudopods initiated by the focal nucleation and polymerization of actin at the leading edge of the cell. We have previously isolated a chemoattractant-regulated barbed-end capping activity from Dictyostelium that is uniquely associated with capping protein, also known as cap32/34. Although uncapping of barbed ends by capping protein has been proposed as a mechanism for the generation of free barbed ends after stimulation, in vitro and in situ analysis of the association of capping protein with the actin cytoskeleton after stimulation reveals that capping protein enters, but does not exit, the cytoskeleton during the initiation of actin polymerization. Increased association of capping protein with regions of the cell containing free barbed ends as visualized by exogenous rhodamine-labeled G-actin is also observed after stimulation. An approximate threefold increase in the number of filaments with free barbed ends is accompanied by increases in absolute filament number, whereas the average filament length remains constant. Therefore, a mechanism in which preexisting filaments are uncapped by capping protein, in response to stimulation leading to the generation of free barbed ends and filament elongation, is not supported. A model for actin assembly after stimulation, whereby free barbed ends are generated by either filament severing or de novo nucleation is proposed. In this model, exposure of free barbed ends results in actin assembly, followed by entry of free capping protein into the actin cytoskeleton, which acts to terminate, not initiate, the actin polymerization transient.     

Profilin-Dependent Nucleation and Assembly of Actin Filaments Controls Cell Elongation in Arabidopsis

Actin filaments in plant cells are incredibly dynamic; they undergo incessant remodeling and assembly or disassembly within seconds. These dynamic events are choreographed by a plethora of actin-binding proteins, but the exact mechanisms are poorly understood. Here, we dissect the contribution of Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) PROFILIN1 (PRF1), a conserved actin monomer-binding protein, to actin organization and single filament dynamics during axial cell expansion of living epidermal cells. We found that reduced PRF1 levels enhanced cell and organ growth. Surprisingly, we observed that the overall frequency of nucleation events in prf1 mutants was dramatically decreased and that a subpopulation of actin filaments that assemble at high rates was reduced. To test whether profilin cooperates with plant formin proteins to execute actin nucleation and rapid filament elongation in cells, we used a pharmacological approach. Here, we used Small Molecule Inhibitor of Formin FH2 (SMIFH2), after validating its mode of action on a plant formin in vitro, and observed a reduced nucleation frequency of actin filaments in live cells. Treatment of wild-type epidermal cells with SMIFH2 mimicked the phenotype of prf1 mutants, and the nucleation frequency in prf1-2 mutant was completely insensitive to these treatments. Our data provide compelling evidence that PRF1 coordinates the stochastic dynamic properties of actin filaments by modulating formin-mediated actin nucleation and assembly during plant cell expansion.The actin cytoskeleton provides tracks for the deposition of cell wall materials and plays important roles during many cellular processes, such as cell expansion and morphogenesis, vesicle trafficking, and the response to biotic and abiotic signals (Baskin, 2005; Smith and Oppenheimer, 2005; Szymanski and Cosgrove, 2009; Ehrhardt and Bezanilla, 2013; Rounds and Bezanilla, 2013). Plant cells respond to diverse internal and external stimuli by regulating the turnover and rearrangement of actin cytoskeleton networks in the cytoplasm (Staiger, 2000; Pleskot et al., 2013). How these actin rearrangements sense the cellular environment and what accessory proteins modulate specific aspects of remodeling remain an area of active investigation (Henty-Ridilla et al., 2013; Li et al., 2014a, 2015).Using high spatial and temporal resolution imaging afforded by variable-angle epifluorescence microscopy (VAEM; Konopka and Bednarek, 2008), we quantified the behavior of actin filaments in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) hypocotyl epidermal cells (Staiger et al., 2009). There are two types of actin filament arrays in the cortical cytoplasm of epidermal cells: bundles and single filaments. Generally, actin bundles are stable with higher pixel intensity values, whereas individual actin filaments are fainter, more ephemeral, and constantly undergo rapid assembly and disassembly through a mechanism that has been defined as “stochastic dynamics” (Staiger et al., 2009; Henty et al., 2011; Li et al., 2012, 2015). Elongating actin filaments in the cortical cytoskeleton originate from three distinct locations: the ends of preexisting actin filaments, the side of filaments or bundles, and de novo in the cytoplasm. Plant actin filaments elongate at rates of 1.6 to 3.4 μm/s, which is the fastest assembly reported in eukaryotic cells. Distinct from the mechanism of treadmilling and fast depolymerization in vitro, however, the disassembly of single actin filaments occurs predominately through prolific severing activity (Staiger et al., 2009; Smertenko et al., 2010; Henty et al., 2011). A commonly held view is that the dynamic actin network in plant cells is regulated by the activities of conserved and novel actin-binding proteins (ABPs). Through reverse-genetic approaches and state-of-the-art imaging modalities, we and others have demonstrated that several key ABPs are involved in the regulation of stochastic actin dynamic properties in a wide variety of plants and cell types (Thomas, 2012; Henty-Ridilla et al., 2013; Li et al., 2014a, 2015). Through these efforts, the field has developed a working model for the molecular mechanisms that underpin actin organization and dynamics in plant cells (Li et al., 2015).Profilin is a small (12–15 kD), conserved actin-monomer binding protein present in all eukaryotic cells (dos Remedios et al., 2003). Profilin binds to actin by forming a 1:1 complex with globular (G-)actin, suppresses spontaneous actin nucleation, and inhibits monomer addition at filament pointed ends (Blanchoin et al., 2014). The consequences of profilin activity on actin filament turnover differ based on cellular conditions and the presence of other ABPs. In vitro studies show that the profilin-actin complex associates with the barbed ends of filaments and promotes actin polymerization by lowering the critical concentration and increasing nucleotide exchange on G-actin (Pollard and Cooper, 1984; Pantaloni and Carlier, 1993). When barbed ends are occupied by capping protein, profilin acts as an actin-monomer sequestering protein. These opposing effects of profilin might be a regulatory mechanism for profilin modulation of actin dynamics in cells. In addition to actin, profilin interacts with Pro-rich proteins, as well as polyphosphoinositide lipids in vitro (Machesky et al., 1994). Formin is an ABP that mediates both actin nucleation and processive elongation using the pool of profilin-actin complexes (Blanchoin et al., 2010). The primary sequence of formin includes a Pro-rich domain, named Formin Homology1 (FH1). Evidence from fission and budding yeast shows that profilin can increase filament elongation rates by binding to the FH1 domain (Kovar et al., 2003; Moseley and Goode, 2005; Kovar, 2006). The FH1 domain of Arabidopsis FORMIN1 (AtFH1) is also reported to modulate actin nucleation and polymerization in vitro (Michelot et al., 2005). Recently, two groups reported that profilin functions as a gatekeeper during the construction of different actin networks generated by formin or ARP2/3 complex in yeast and mammalian cells (Rotty et al., 2015; Suarez et al., 2015). These studies highlight the importance of profilin regulation in coordinating the different actin arrays present in the same cytoplasm of eukaryotic cells. However, direct evidence for how profilin facilitates formin-mediated actin nucleation or barbed end elongation in cells remains to be established.Genomic sequencing and isolation of PROFILIN (PRF) cDNAs from plants reveal that profilin is encoded by a multigene family. For example, moss (Physcomitrella patens) has three isovariants (Vidali et al., 2007) and maize (Zea mays) has five (Staiger et al., 1993; Kovar et al., 2001). In Arabidopsis, at least five PRF genes have been identified (Christensen et al., 1996; Huang et al., 1996; Kandasamy et al., 2002). Studies in maize show that the biochemical properties of profilin isoforms differ in vitro (Kovar et al., 2000). Moreover, the localization of profilin isoforms reveals organ-specific expression patterns. Detection of protein levels in vivo with isovariant-specific profilin antibodies demonstrate that Arabidopsis PRF1, PRF2, and PRF3 are constitutively expressed in vegetative tissues, whereas PRF4 and PRF5 are expressed mainly in flower and pollen tissues (Christensen et al., 1996; Huang et al., 1996; Ma et al., 2005).Several genetic studies on the functions of profilin in plants have been conducted. Reduction of profilin levels in P. patens results in the inhibition of tip growth, disorganization of F-actin, and formation of actin patches (Vidali et al., 2007). Moreover, it was shown that the interaction between profilin and actin or Pro-rich ligands is critical for tip growth in moss. Arabidopsis PRF1 has been demonstrated to be involved in cell elongation, cell shape maintenance, and control of flowering time through overexpression and antisense PRF1 transgenic plants, and further, the reduction of PRF1 inhibits the growth of hypocotyls (Ramachandran et al., 2000). However, investigation of a prf1-1 mutant, which contains a T-DNA insertion in the promoter region of the PRF1 gene, indicates that cell expansion of seedlings is promoted and that protein levels of PRF1 are regulated by light (McKinney et al., 2001). Recently, Müssar et al. (2015) reported a new Arabidopsis T-DNA insertion allele, prf1-4, that shows an obvious dwarf seedling phenotype. To date, however, there has not been a critical examination of the impact of the loss of profilin on the organization and dynamics of bona-fide single actin filaments in vivo.Here, we use a combination of genetics and live-cell imaging to investigate the role of PRF1 in the control of actin dynamics and its effect on axial cell expansion. We observed a significant decrease in the overall filament nucleation frequency in prf1 mutants, which is opposite to expectations if profilin suppresses spontaneous nucleation. Through a pharmacological approach, we found that nucleation frequency in wild-type cells treated with a formin inhibitor, SMIFH2, phenocopied prf1 mutants. We also analyzed the dynamic turnover of individual filaments in prf1 mutants and observed a significant decrease in the rate of actin filament elongation and maximum length of actin filaments. Specifically, we found that PRF1 favors the growth of a subpopulation of actin filaments that elongate at rates greater than 2 μm/s and similar results were obtained in cells after SMIFH2 treatment. Our results provide compelling evidence that Arabidopsis PRF1 contributes to stochastic actin dynamics by modulating formin-mediated actin nucleation and filament elongation during axial cell expansion.     

Coordinated regulation of platelet actin filament barbed ends by gelsolin and capping protein

Exposure of cryptic actin filament fast growing ends (barbed ends) initiates actin polymerization in stimulated human and mouse platelets. Gelsolin amplifies platelet actin assembly by severing F-actin and increasing the number of barbed ends. Actin filaments in stimulated platelets from transgenic gelsolin-null mice elongate their actin without severing. F-actin barbed end capping activity persists in human platelet extracts, depleted of gelsolin, and the heterodimeric capping protein (CP) accounts for this residual activity. 35% of the approximately 5 microM CP is associated with the insoluble actin cytoskeleton of the resting platelet. Since resting platelets have an F- actin barbed end concentration of approximately 0.5 microM, sufficient CP is bound to cap these ends. CP is released from OG-permeabilized platelets by treatment with phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate or through activation of the thrombin receptor. However, the fraction of CP bound to the actin cytoskeleton of thrombin-stimulated mouse and human platelets increases rapidly to approximately 60% within 30 s. In resting platelets from transgenic mice lacking gelsolin, which have 33% more F-actin than gelsolin-positive cells, there is a corresponding increase in the amount of CP associated with the resting cytoskeleton but no change with stimulation. These findings demonstrate an interaction between the two major F-actin barbed end capping proteins of the platelet: gelsolin-dependent severing produces barbed ends that are capped by CP. Phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate release of gelsolin and CP from platelet cytoskeleton provides a mechanism for mediating barbed end exposure. After actin assembly, CP reassociates with the new actin cytoskeleton.     

Structural basis of actin filament capping at the barbed-end: a cryo-electron microscopy study

The intracellular distribution and migration of many protein complexes and organelles is regulated by the dynamics of the actin filament. Many actin filament end-binding proteins play crucial roles in actin dynamics, since polymerization and depolymerization of actin protomers occur only at the filament ends. We present here an EM structure of the complex of the actin filament and hetero-dimeric capping protein (CP) bound to the barbed-end at 23 A resolution, by applying a newly developed methods of image analysis to cryo-electron micrographs. This structure was fitted by the crystal structure of CP and the proposed actin filament structure, allowing us to construct a model that depicts two major binding regions between CP and the barbed-end. This binding scheme accounted for the results of newly performed and previously published mutation experiments, and led us to propose a two-step binding model. This is the first determination of an actin filament end structure.     

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.     

The Molecular Chaperone CCT Sequesters Gelsolin and Protects it from Cleavage by Caspase-3

The actin filament severing and capping protein gelsolin plays an important role in modulation of actin filament dynamics by influencing the number of actin filament ends. During apoptosis, gelsolin becomes constitutively active due to cleavage by caspase-3. In non-apoptotic cells gelsolin is activated by the binding of Ca²⁺. This activated form of gelsolin binds to, but is not a folding substrate of the molecular chaperone CCT/TRiC. Here we demonstrate that in vitro, gelsolin is protected from cleavage by caspase-3 in the presence of CCT. Cryoelectron microscopy and single particle 3D reconstruction of the CCT:gelsolin complex reveals that gelsolin is located in the interior of the chaperonin cavity, with a placement distinct from that of the obligate CCT folding substrates actin and tubulin. In cultured mouse melanoma B16F1 cells, gelsolin co-localises with CCT upon stimulation of actin dynamics at peripheral regions during lamellipodia formation. These data indicate that localised sequestration of gelsolin by CCT may provide spatial control of actin filament dynamics.     

The Plant Actin Cytoskeleton Responds to Signals from Microbe-Associated Molecular Patterns

Plants are constantly exposed to a large and diverse array of microbes; however, most plants are immune to the majority of potential invaders and susceptible to only a small subset of pathogens. The cytoskeleton comprises a dynamic intracellular framework that responds rapidly to biotic stresses and supports numerous fundamental cellular processes including vesicle trafficking, endocytosis and the spatial distribution of organelles and protein complexes. For years, the actin cytoskeleton has been assumed to play a role in plant innate immunity against fungi and oomycetes, based largely on static images and pharmacological studies. To date, however, there is little evidence that the host-cell actin cytoskeleton participates in responses to phytopathogenic bacteria. Here, we quantified the spatiotemporal changes in host-cell cytoskeletal architecture during the immune response to pathogenic and non-pathogenic strains of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000. Two distinct changes to host cytoskeletal arrays were observed that correspond to distinct phases of plant-bacterial interactions i.e. the perception of microbe-associated molecular patterns (MAMPs) during pattern-triggered immunity (PTI) and perturbations by effector proteins during effector-triggered susceptibility (ETS). We demonstrate that an immediate increase in actin filament abundance is a conserved and novel component of PTI. Notably, treatment of leaves with a MAMP peptide mimic was sufficient to elicit a rapid change in actin organization in epidermal cells, and this actin response required the host-cell MAMP receptor kinase complex, including FLS2, BAK1 and BIK1. Finally, we found that actin polymerization is necessary for the increase in actin filament density and that blocking this increase with the actin-disrupting drug latrunculin B leads to enhanced susceptibility of host plants to pathogenic and non-pathogenic bacteria.     

F‐actin dynamics in midgut cells enables virus persistence in vector insects

Hemipteran insects that transmit plant viruses in a persistent circulative manner acquire, retain and transmit viruses for their entire life. The mechanism enabling this persistence has remained unclear for many years. Here, we determined how wheat dwarf virus (WDV) persists in its leafhopper vector Psammotettix alienus. We found that WDV caused the up‐regulation of actin‐depolymerizing factor (ADF) at the mRNA and protein levels in the midgut cells of leafhoppers after experiencing a WDV acquisition access period (AAP) of 6, 12 or 24 h. Experimental inhibition of F‐actin depolymerization by jasplakinolide and dsRNA injection led to lower virus accumulation levels and transmission efficiencies, suggesting that depolymerization of F‐actin regulated by ADF is essential for WDV invasion of midgut cells. Exogenous viral capsid protein (CP) inhibited ADF depolymerization of actin filaments in vitro and in Spodoptera frugiperda 9 (Sf9) cells because the CP competed with actin to bind ADF and then blocked actin filament disassembly. Interestingly, virions colocalized with ADF after a 24‐h AAP, just as actin polymerization occurred, indicating that the binding of CP with ADF affects the ability of ADF to depolymerize F‐actin, inhibiting WDV entry. Similarly, the luteovirus barley yellow dwarf virus also induced F‐actin depolymerization and then polymerization in the gut cells of its vector Schizaphis graminum. Thus, F‐actin dynamics are altered by nonpropagative viruses in midgut cells to enable virus persistence in vector insects.     

Accumulation of Squalene in a Microalga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii by Genetic Modification of Squalene Synthase and Squalene Epoxidase Genes

Several microalgae accumulate high levels of squalene, and as such provide a potentially valuable source of this useful compound. However, the molecular mechanism of squalene biosynthesis in microalgae is still largely unknown. We obtained the sequences of two enzymes involved in squalene synthesis and metabolism, squalene synthase (CrSQS) and squalene epoxidase (CrSQE), from the model green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. CrSQS was functionally characterized by expression in Escherichia coli and CrSQE by complementation of a budding yeast erg1 mutant. Transient expression of CrSQS and CrSQE fused with fluorescent proteins in onion epidermal tissue suggested that both proteins were co-localized in the endoplasmic reticulum. CrSQS-overexpression increased the rate of conversion of ¹⁴C-labeled farnesylpyrophosphate into squalene but did not lead to over-accumulation of squalene. Addition of terbinafine caused the accumulation of squalene and suppression of cell survival. On the other hand, in CrSQE-knockdown lines, the expression level of CrSQE was reduced by 59–76% of that in wild-type cells, and significant levels of squalene (0.9–1.1 μg mg^–1 cell dry weight) accumulated without any growth inhibition. In co-transformation lines with CrSQS-overexpression and CrSQE-knockdown, the level of squalene was not increased significantly compared with that in solitary CrSQE-knockdown lines. These results indicated that partial knockdown of CrSQE is an effective strategy to increase squalene production in C. reinhardtii cells.     

Quantitative analysis of actin turnover in Listeria comet tails: evidence for catastrophic filament turnover

Rapid assembly and disassembly (turnover) of actin filaments in cytoplasm drives cell motility and shape remodeling. While many biochemical processes that facilitate filament turnover are understood in isolation, it remains unclear how they work together to promote filament turnover in cells. Here, we studied cellular mechanisms of actin filament turnover by combining quantitative microscopy with mathematical modeling. Using live cell imaging, we found that actin polymer mass decay in Listeria comet tails is very well fit by a simple exponential. By analyzing candidate filament turnover pathways using stochastic modeling, we found that exponential polymer mass decay is consistent with either slow treadmilling, slow Arp2/3-dissociation, or catastrophic bursts of disassembly, but is inconsistent with acceleration of filament turnover by severing. Imaging of single filaments in Xenopus egg extract provided evidence that disassembly by bursting dominates isolated filament turnover in a cytoplasmic context. Taken together, our results point to a pathway where filaments grow transiently from barbed ends, rapidly terminate growth to enter a long-lived stable state, and then undergo a catastrophic burst of disassembly. By keeping filament lengths largely constant over time, such catastrophic filament turnover may enable cellular actin assemblies to maintain their mechanical integrity as they are turning over.     

A Highlights from MBoC Selection: Mathematical Modeling of Endocytic Actin Patch Kinetics in Fission Yeast: Disassembly Requires Release of Actin Filament Fragments

We used the dendritic nucleation hypothesis to formulate a mathematical model of the assembly and disassembly of actin filaments at sites of clathrin-mediated endocytosis in fission yeast. We used the wave of active WASp recruitment at the site of the patch formation to drive assembly reactions after activation of Arp2/3 complex. Capping terminated actin filament elongation. Aging of the filaments by ATP hydrolysis and γ-phosphate dissociation allowed actin filament severing by cofilin. The model could simulate the assembly and disassembly of actin and other actin patch proteins using measured cytoplasmic concentrations of the proteins. However, to account quantitatively for the numbers of proteins measured over time in the accompanying article (Sirotkin et al., 2010 , MBoC 21: 2792–2802), two reactions must be faster in cells than in vitro. Conditions inside the cell allow capping protein to bind to the barbed ends of actin filaments and Arp2/3 complex to bind to the sides of filaments faster than the purified proteins in vitro. Simulations also show that depolymerization from pointed ends cannot account for rapid loss of actin filaments from patches in 10 s. An alternative mechanism consistent with the data is that severing produces short fragments that diffuse away from the patch.