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

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

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

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

Engineered Tug‐of‐War Between Kinesin and Dynein Controls Direction of Microtubule Based Transport In Vivo

Bidirectional transport of membrane organelles along microtubules (MTs) is driven by plus‐end directed kinesins and minus‐end directed dynein bound to the same cargo. Activities of opposing MT motors produce bidirectional movement of membrane organelles and cytoplasmic particles along MT transport tracks. Directionality of MT‐based transport might be controlled by a protein complex that determines which motor type is active at any given moment of time, or determined by the outcome of a tug‐of‐war between MT motors dragging cargo organelles in opposite directions. However, evidence in support of each mechanisms of regulation is based mostly on the results of theoretical analyses or indirect experimental data. Here, we test whether the direction of movement of membrane organelles in vivo can be controlled by the tug‐of‐war between opposing MT motors alone, by attaching a large number of kinesin‐1 motors to organelles transported by dynein to minus‐ends of MTs. We find that recruitment of kinesin significantly reduces the length and velocity of minus‐end‐directed dynein‐dependent MT runs, leading to a reversal of the overall direction of dynein‐driven organelles in vivo. Therefore, in the absence of external regulators tug‐of‐war between opposing MT motors alone is sufficient to determine the directionality of MT transport in vivo.      

Posterior localization of dynein and dorsal-ventral axis formation depend on kinesin in Drosophila oocytes

To establish the major body axes, late Drosophila oocytes localize determinants to discrete cortical positions: bicoid mRNA to the anterior cortex, oskar mRNA to the posterior cortex, and gurken mRNA to the margin of the anterior cortex adjacent to the oocyte nucleus (the "anterodorsal corner"). These localizations depend on microtubules that are thought to be organized such that plus end-directed motors can move cargoes, like oskar, away from the anterior/lateral surfaces and hence toward the posterior pole. Likewise, minus end-directed motors may move cargoes toward anterior destinations. Contradicting this, cytoplasmic dynein, a minus-end motor, accumulates at the posterior. Here, we report that disruption of the plus-end motor kinesin I causes a shift of dynein from posterior to anterior. This provides an explanation for the dynein paradox, suggesting that dynein is moved as a cargo toward the posterior pole by kinesin-generated forces. However, other results present a new transport polarity puzzle. Disruption of kinesin I causes partial defects in anterior positioning of the nucleus and severe defects in anterodorsal localization of gurken mRNA. Kinesin may generate anterodorsal forces directly, despite the apparent preponderance of minus ends at the anterior cortex. Alternatively, kinesin I may facilitate cytoplasmic dynein-based anterodorsal forces by repositioning dynein toward microtubule plus ends.     

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

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

Barentsz is essential for the posterior localization of oskar mRNA and colocalizes with it to the posterior pole

The localization of Oskar at the posterior pole of the Drosophila oocyte induces the assembly of the pole plasm and therefore defines where the abdomen and germ cells form in the embryo. This localization is achieved by the targeting of oskar mRNA to the posterior and the localized activation of its translation. oskar mRNA seems likely to be actively transported along microtubules, since its localization requires both an intact microtubule cytoskeleton and the plus end-directed motor kinesin I, but nothing is known about how the RNA is coupled to the motor. Here, we describe barentsz, a novel gene required for the localization of oskar mRNA. In contrast to all other mutations that disrupt this process, barentsz-null mutants completely block the posterior localization of oskar mRNA without affecting bicoid and gurken mRNA localization, the organization of the microtubules, or subsequent steps in pole plasm assembly. Surprisingly, most mutant embryos still form an abdomen, indicating that oskar mRNA localization is partially redundant with the translational control. Barentsz protein colocalizes to the posterior with oskar mRNA, and this localization is oskar mRNA dependent. Thus, Barentsz is essential for the posterior localization of oskar mRNA and behaves as a specific component of the oskar RNA transport complex.     

In vivo imaging of oskar mRNA transport reveals the mechanism of posterior localization

oskar mRNA localization to the posterior of the Drosophila oocyte defines where the abdomen and germ cells form in the embryo. Although this localization requires microtubules and the plus end-directed motor, kinesin, its mechanism is controversial and has been proposed to involve active transport to the posterior, diffusion and trapping, or exclusion from the anterior and lateral cortex. By following oskar mRNA particles in living oocytes, we show that the mRNA is actively transported along microtubules in all directions, with a slight bias toward the posterior. This bias is sufficient to localize the mRNA and is reversed in mago, barentsz, and Tropomyosin II mutants, which mislocalize the mRNA anteriorly. Since almost all transport is mediated by kinesin, oskar mRNA localizes by a biased random walk along a weakly polarized cytoskeleton. We also show that each component of the oskar mRNA complex plays a distinct role in particle formation and transport.     

Coiled‐coil registry shifts in the F684I mutant of Bicaudal D result in cargo‐independent activation of dynein motility

The dynein adaptor Drosophila Bicaudal D (BicD) is auto‐inhibited and activates dynein motility only after cargo is bound, but the underlying mechanism is elusive. In contrast, we show that the full‐length BicD/F684I mutant activates dynein processivity even in the absence of cargo. Our X‐ray structure of the C‐terminal domain of the BicD/F684I mutant reveals a coiled‐coil registry shift; in the N‐terminal region, the two helices of the homodimer are aligned, whereas they are vertically shifted in the wild‐type. One chain is partially disordered and this structural flexibility is confirmed by computations, which reveal that the mutant transitions back and forth between the two registries. We propose that a coiled‐coil registry shift upon cargo‐binding activates BicD for dynein recruitment. Moreover, the human homolog BicD2/F743I exhibits diminished binding of cargo adaptor Nup358, implying that a coiled‐coil registry shift may be a mechanism to modulate cargo selection for BicD2‐dependent transport pathways.     

Dynein anchors its mRNA cargo after apical transport in the Drosophila blastoderm embryo

Molecular motors actively transport many types of cargo along the cytoskeleton in a wide range of organisms. One class of cargo is localized mRNAs, which are transported by myosin on actin filaments or by kinesin and dynein on microtubules. How the cargo is kept at its final intracellular destination and whether the motors are recycled after completion of transport are poorly understood. Here, we use a new RNA anchoring assay in living Drosophila blastoderm embryos to show that apical anchoring of mRNA after completion of dynein transport does not depend on actin or on continuous active transport by the motor. Instead, apical anchoring of RNA requires microtubules and involves dynein as a static anchor that remains with the cargo at its final destination. We propose a general principle that could also apply to other dynein cargo and to some other molecular motors, whereby cargo transport and anchoring reside in the same molecule.     

Oocyte patterning: dynein and kinesin,inc

Recent studies show that dynein and kinesin are both required for cargo transport to the anterior cortex of the Drosophila oocyte. The orientation of microtubules in the oocyte suggests that kinesin mediates anterior transport indirectly, by activating and/or recycling dynein.     

Kinesin‐2 differentially regulates the anterograde axonal transports of acetylcholinesterase and choline acetyltransferase in Drosophila

Choline acetyltransferase (ChAT) and acetylcholinesterase (AChE) are involved in acetylcholine synthesis and degradation at pre‐ and postsynaptic compartments, respectively. Here we show that their anterograde transport in Drosophila larval ganglion is microtubule‐dependent and occurs in two different time profiles. AChE transport is constitutive while that of ChAT occurs in a brief pulse during third instar larva stage. Mutations in the kinesin‐2 motor subunit Klp64D and separate siRNA‐mediated knock‐outs of all the three kinesin‐2 subunits disrupt the ChAT and AChE transports, and these antigens accumulate in discrete nonoverlapping punctae in neuronal cell bodies and axons. Quantification analysis further showed that mutations in Klp64D could independently affect the anterograde transport of AChE even before that of ChAT. Finally, ChAT and AChE were coimmunoprecipitated with the kinesin‐2 subunits but not with each other. Altogether, these suggest that kinesin‐2 independently transports AChE and ChAT within the same axon. It also implies that cargo availability could regulate the rate and frequency of transports by kinesin motors. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Neurobiol, 2006     

Traffic control: adaptor proteins guide dynein–cargo takeoff

The precise movement of intracellular components requires active transport by molecular motors along the filamentous tracks of the cytoskeleton. While yeast cytoplasmic dynein can walk for some distance along microtubules, mammalian dynein is non‐processive. This has raised the question of how this motor can transport cargo. In two recent papers by the Carter, Bullock and Vale labs, mammalian dynein processivity has now been successfully reconstituted in vitro in the presence of adaptor proteins.     

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

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

Regulation of dynein‐dynactin‐driven vesicular transport

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

The structure of the SOLE element of oskar mRNA

mRNA localization by active transport is a regulated process that requires association of mRNPs with protein motors for transport along either the microtubule or the actin cytoskeleton. oskar mRNA localization at the posterior pole of the Drosophila oocyte requires a specific mRNA sequence, termed the SOLE, which comprises nucleotides of both exon 1 and exon 2 and is assembled upon splicing. The SOLE folds into a stem–loop structure. Both SOLE RNA and the exon junction complex (EJC) are required for oskar mRNA transport along the microtubules by kinesin. The SOLE RNA likely constitutes a recognition element for a yet unknown protein, which either belongs to the EJC or functions as a bridge between the EJC and the mRNA. Here, we determine the solution structure of the SOLE RNA by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectroscopy. We show that the SOLE forms a continuous helical structure, including a few noncanonical base pairs, capped by a pentanucleotide loop. The helix displays a widened major groove, which could accommodate a protein partner. In addition, the apical helical segment undergoes complex dynamics, with potential functional significance.     

EVIDENCE FOR KINESIN‐ AND DYNEIN‐LIKE PROTEIN FUNCTION IN CIRCULAR NUCLEAR MIGRATION IN THE GREEN ALGA PLEURENTERIUM TUMIDUM: DIGITAL TIME LAPSE ANALYSIS OF INHIBITOR EFFECTS1

The unicellular green alga Pleurenterium tumidum Bréb. performs a unique type of circular nuclear migration, wherein the nucleus leaves its central position and starts revolutions in the cortical isthmus area about 10 h after mitosis. This motion lasts for at least 12 h with an average velocity of about 1 h per revolution. Possible force generation modes during circular nuclear migration of Pleurenterium were investigated by application of inhibitors and the use of digital time‐lapse video microscopy. 5′‐Adenylylimidodiphosphate, a nonhydrolyzable nucleotide analogue, retarded or inhibited circular nuclear migration, suggesting that ATPase dependent motor proteins are involved. Ado‐ ciasulfate‐2, a kinesin specific inhibitor, caused displacement of the nucleus, suggesting that the linkage between the microtubule track and the nucleus is lost. The nucleus was still able to move for short distances, but no normal revolutions took place. Erythro‐9‐[3‐(2‐hydroxynonyl)] adenine, a dynein ATPase inhibitor, led to complete inhibition of nuclear revolutions, suggesting a function in force generation also for this molecular motor. In addition, kinesin‐ and dynein‐like proteins were detected in Pleurenterium extracts by Western blotting. The myosin specific inhibitor 2,3‐butanedione 2‐monoxime did not influence circular nuclear migration in Pleurenterium. This result and the absence of actin filaments around the migrating nucleus as depicted by means of microinjection of Alexa phalloidin in the present study indicate that the actin‐myosin system can be excluded from force generation.     

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

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

SKIP,the Host Target of the Salmonella Virulence Factor SifA,Promotes Kinesin‐1‐Dependent Vacuolar Membrane Exchanges

In Salmonella‐infected cells, the bacterial effector SifA forms a functional complex with the eukaryotic protein SKIP (SifA and kinesin‐interacting protein). The lack of either partner has important consequences on the intracellular fate and on the virulence of this pathogen. In addition to SifA, SKIP binds the microtubule‐based motor kinesin‐1. Yet the absence of SifA or SKIP results in an unusual accumulation of kinesin‐1 on the bacterial vacuolar membrane. To understand this apparent contradiction, we investigated the interaction between SKIP and kinesin‐1 and the function of this complex. We show that the C‐terminal RUN (RPIP8, UNC‐14 and NESCA) domain of SKIP interacted specifically with the tetratricopeptide repeat (TPR) domain of the kinesin light chain. Overexpression of SKIP induced a microtubule‐ and kinesin‐1‐dependent anterograde movement of late endosomal/lysosomal compartments. In infected cells, SifA contributed to the fission of vesicles from the bacterial vacuole and the SifA/SKIP complex was required for the formation and/or the anterograde transport of kinesin‐1‐enriched vesicles. These observations reflect the role of SKIP as a linker and/or an activator for kinesin‐1.     

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

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