Coordinated regulation of actin filament turnover by a high-molecular-weight Srv2/CAP complex, cofilin, profilin, and Aip1

BACKGROUND: Dynamic remodeling of the actin cytoskeleton requires rapid turnover of actin filaments, which is regulated in part by the actin filament severing/depolymerization factor cofilin/ADF. Two factors that cooperate with cofilin are Srv2/CAP and Aip1. Human CAP enhances cofilin-mediated actin turnover in vitro, but its biophysical properties have not been defined, and there has been no in vivo evidence reported for its role in turnover. Xenopus Aip1 forms a cofilin-dependent cap at filament barbed ends. It has been unclear how these diverse activities are coordinated in vivo. RESULTS: Purified native yeast Srv2/CAP forms a high molecular weight structure comprised solely of actin and Srv2. The complex is linked to actin filaments via the SH3 domain of Abp1. Srv2 complex catalytically accelerates cofilin-dependent actin turnover by releasing cofilin from ADP-actin monomers and enhances the ability of profilin to stimulate nucleotide exchange on ADP-actin. Yeast Aip1 forms a cofilin-dependent filament barbed end cap, disrupted by the cof1-19 mutant. Genetic analyses show that specific combinations of activities mediated by cofilin, Srv2, Aip1, and capping protein are required in vivo. CONCLUSIONS: We define two genetically and biochemically separable functions for cofilin in actin turnover. One is formation of an Aip1-cofilin cap at filament barbed ends. The other is cofilin-mediated severing/depolymerization of filaments, accelerated indirectly by Srv2 complex. We show that the Srv2 complex is a large multimeric structure and functions as an intermediate in actin monomer processing, converting cofilin bound ADP-actin monomers to profilin bound ATP-actin monomers and recycling cofilin for new rounds of filament depolymerization.     

Structure and Mechanism of Mouse Cyclase-associated Protein (CAP1) in Regulating Actin Dynamics

Srv2/CAP is a conserved actin-binding protein with important roles in driving cellular actin dynamics in diverse animal, fungal, and plant species. However, there have been conflicting reports about whether the activities of Srv2/CAP are conserved, particularly between yeast and mammalian homologs. Yeast Srv2 has two distinct functions in actin turnover: its hexameric N-terminal-half enhances cofilin-mediated severing of filaments, while its C-terminal-half catalyzes dissociation of cofilin from ADP-actin monomers and stimulates nucleotide exchange. Here, we dissected the structure and function of mouse CAP1 to better understand its mechanistic relationship to yeast Srv2. Although CAP1 has a shorter N-terminal oligomerization sequence compared with Srv2, we find that the N-terminal-half of CAP1 (N-CAP1) forms hexameric structures with six protrusions, similar to N-Srv2. Further, N-CAP1 autonomously binds to F-actin and decorates the sides and ends of filaments, altering F-actin structure and enhancing cofilin-mediated severing. These activities depend on conserved surface residues on the helical-folded domain. Moreover, N-CAP1 enhances yeast cofilin-mediated severing, and conversely, yeast N-Srv2 enhances human cofilin-mediated severing, highlighting the mechanistic conservation between yeast and mammals. Further, we demonstrate that the C-terminal actin-binding β-sheet domain of CAP1 is sufficient to catalyze nucleotide-exchange of ADP-actin monomers, while in the presence of cofilin this activity additionally requires the WH2 domain. Thus, the structures, activities, and mechanisms of mouse and yeast Srv2/CAP homologs are remarkably well conserved, suggesting that the same activities and mechanisms underlie many of the diverse actin-based functions ascribed to Srv2/CAP homologs in different organisms.     

Effect of the structure of the N terminus of tropomyosin on tropomodulin function

Tropomodulins (Tmod) bind to the N terminus of tropomyosin and cap the pointed end of actin filaments. Tropomyosin alone also inhibits the rate of actin depolymerization at the pointed end of filaments. Here we have defined 1) the structural requirements of the N terminus of tropomyosin important for regulating the pointed end alone and with erythrocyte Tmod (Tmod1), and 2) the Tmod1 subdomains required for binding to tropomyosin and for regulating the pointed end. Changes in pyrene-actin fluorescence during polymerization and depolymerization were measured with actin filaments blocked at the barbed end with gelsolin. Three tropomyosin isoforms differently influence pointed end dynamics. Recombinant TM5a, a short non-muscle alpha-tropomyosin, inhibited depolymerization. Recombinant (unacetylated) TM2 and N-acetylated striated muscle TM (stTM), long alpha-tropomyosin isoforms with the same N-terminal sequence, different from TM5a, also inhibited depolymerization but were less effective than TM5a. All blocked the pointed end with Tmod1 in the order of effectiveness TM5a >stTM >TM2, showing the importance of the N-terminal sequence and modification. Tmod1-(1-344), lacking the C-terminal 15 residues, did not nucleate polymerization but blocked the pointed end with all three tropomyosin isoforms as does a shorter fragment, Tmod1-(1-92), lacking the C-terminal "capping" domain though higher concentrations were required. An even shorter fragment, Tmod1-(1-48), bound tropomyosin but did not influence actin filament elongation. Tropomyosin-Tmod may function to locally regulate cytoskeletal dynamics in cells by stabilizing actin filaments.     

A high-affinity interaction with ADP-actin monomers underlies the mechanism and in vivo function of Srv2/cyclase-associated protein

Cyclase-associated protein (CAP), also called Srv2 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, is a conserved actin monomer-binding protein that promotes cofilin-dependent actin turnover in vitro and in vivo. However, little is known about the mechanism underlying this function. Here, we show that S. cerevisiae CAP binds with strong preference to ADP-G-actin (Kd 0.02 microM) compared with ATP-G-actin (Kd 1.9 microM) and competes directly with cofilin for binding ADP-G-actin. Further, CAP blocks actin monomer addition specifically to barbed ends of filaments, in contrast to profilin, which blocks monomer addition to pointed ends of filaments. The actin-binding domain of CAP is more extensive than previously suggested and includes a recently solved beta-sheet structure in the C-terminus of CAP and adjacent sequences. Using site-directed mutagenesis, we define evolutionarily conserved residues that mediate binding to ADP-G-actin and demonstrate that these activities are required for CAP function in vivo in directing actin organization and polarized cell growth. Together, our data suggest that in vivo CAP competes with cofilin for binding ADP-actin monomers, allows rapid nucleotide exchange to occur on actin, and then because of its 100-fold weaker binding affinity for ATP-actin compared with ADP-actin, allows other cellular factors such as profilin to take the handoff of ATP-actin and facilitate barbed end assembly.     

Mammalian twinfilin sequesters ADP-G-actin and caps filament barbed ends: implications in motility

Twinfilins are conserved actin-binding proteins composed of two actin depolymerizing factor homology (ADF-H) domains. Twinfilins are involved in diverse morphological and motile processes, but their mechanism of action has not been elucidated. Here, we show that mammalian twinfilin both sequesters ADP-G-actin and caps filament barbed ends with preferential affinity for ADP-bound ends. Twinfilin replaces capping protein and promotes motility of N-WASP functionalized beads in a biomimetic motility assay, indicating that the capping activity supports twinfilin's function in motility. Consistently, in vivo twinfilin localizes to actin tails of propelling endosomes. The ADP-actin-sequestering activity cooperates with the filament capping activity of twinfilin to finely regulate motility due to processive filament assembly catalyzed by formin-functionalized beads. The isolated ADF-H domains do not cap barbed ends nor promote motility, but sequester ADP-actin, the C-terminal domain showing the highest affinity. A structural model for binding of twinfilin to barbed ends is proposed based on the similar foldings of twinfilin ADF-H domains and gelsolin segments.     

Biological role and structural mechanism of twinfilin-capping protein interaction

Twinfilin and capping protein (CP) are highly conserved actin-binding proteins that regulate cytoskeletal dynamics in organisms from yeast to mammals. Twinfilin binds actin monomer, while CP binds the barbed end of the actin filament. Remarkably, twinfilin and CP also bind directly to each other, but the mechanism and role of this interaction in actin dynamics are not defined. Here, we found that the binding of twinfilin to CP does not affect the binding of either protein to actin. Furthermore, site-directed mutagenesis studies revealed that the CP-binding site resides in the conserved C-terminal tail region of twinfilin. The solution structure of the twinfilin-CP complex supports these conclusions. In vivo, twinfilin's binding to both CP and actin monomer was found to be necessary for twinfilin's role in actin assembly dynamics, based on genetic studies with mutants that have defined biochemical functions. Our results support a novel model for how sequential interactions between actin monomers, twinfilin, CP, and actin filaments promote cytoskeletal dynamics.     

Structural conservation between the actin monomer-binding sites of twinfilin and actin-depolymerizing factor (ADF)/cofilin

Twinfilin is an evolutionarily conserved actin monomer-binding protein that regulates cytoskeletal dynamics in organisms from yeast to mammals. It is composed of two actin-depolymerization factor homology (ADF-H) domains that show approximately 20% sequence identity to ADF/cofilin proteins. In contrast to ADF/cofilins, which bind both G-actin and F-actin and promote filament depolymerization, twinfilin interacts only with G-actin. To elucidate the molecular mechanisms of twinfilin-actin monomer interaction, we determined the crystal structure of the N-terminal ADF-H domain of twinfilin and mapped its actin-binding site by site-directed mutagenesis. This domain has similar overall structure to ADF/cofilins, and the regions important for actin monomer binding in ADF/cofilins are especially well conserved in twinfilin. Mutagenesis studies show that the N-terminal ADF-H domain of twinfilin and ADF/cofilins also interact with actin monomers through similar interfaces, although the binding surface is slightly extended in twinfilin. In contrast, the regions important for actin-filament interactions in ADF/cofilins are structurally different in twinfilin. This explains the differences in actin-interactions (monomer versus filament binding) between twinfilin and ADF/cofilins. Taken together, our data show that the ADF-H domain is a structurally conserved actin-binding motif and that relatively small structural differences at the actin interfaces of this domain are responsible for the functional variation between the different classes of ADF-H domain proteins.     

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.     

Structure of the actin-depolymerizing factor homology domain in complex with actin

Actin dynamics provide the driving force for many cellular processes including motility and endocytosis. Among the central cytoskeletal regulators are actin-depolymerizing factor (ADF)/cofilin, which depolymerizes actin filaments, and twinfilin, which sequesters actin monomers and caps filament barbed ends. Both interact with actin through an ADF homology (ADF-H) domain, which is also found in several other actin-binding proteins. However, in the absence of an atomic structure for the ADF-H domain in complex with actin, the mechanism by which these proteins interact with actin has remained unknown. Here, we present the crystal structure of twinfilin's C-terminal ADF-H domain in complex with an actin monomer. This domain binds between actin subdomains 1 and 3 through an interface that is conserved among ADF-H domain proteins. Based on this structure, we suggest a mechanism by which ADF/cofilin and twinfilin inhibit nucleotide exchange of actin monomers and present a model for how ADF/cofilin induces filament depolymerization by weakening intrafilament interactions.     

Mammalian and Malaria Parasite Cyclase-associated Proteins Catalyze Nucleotide Exchange on G-actin through a Conserved Mechanism

Cyclase-associated proteins (CAPs) are among the most highly conserved regulators of actin dynamics, being present in organisms from mammals to apicomplexan parasites. Yeast, plant, and mammalian CAPs are large multidomain proteins, which catalyze nucleotide exchange on actin monomers from ADP to ATP and recycle actin monomers from actin-depolymerizing factor (ADF)/cofilin for new rounds of filament assembly. However, the mechanism by which CAPs promote nucleotide exchange is not known. Furthermore, how apicomplexan CAPs, which lack many domains present in yeast and mammalian CAPs, contribute to actin dynamics is not understood. We show that, like yeast Srv2/CAP, mouse CAP1 interacts with ADF/cofilin and ADP-G-actin through its N-terminal α-helical and C-terminal β-strand domains, respectively. However, in the variation to yeast Srv2/CAP, mouse CAP1 has two adjacent profilin-binding sites, and it interacts with ATP-actin monomers with high affinity through its WH2 domain. Importantly, we revealed that the C-terminal β-sheet domain of mouse CAP1 is essential and sufficient for catalyzing nucleotide exchange on actin monomers, although the adjacent WH2 domain is not required for this function. Supporting these data, we show that the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum CAP, which is entirely composed of the β-sheet domain, efficiently promotes nucleotide exchange on actin monomers. Collectively, this study provides evidence that catalyzing nucleotide exchange on actin monomers via the β-sheet domain is the most highly conserved function of CAPs from mammals to apicomplexan parasites. Other functions, including interactions with profilin and ADF/cofilin, evolved in more complex organisms to adjust the specific role of CAPs in actin dynamics.     

A Highlights from MBoC Selection: Srv2/cyclase-associated protein forms hexameric shurikens that directly catalyze actin filament severing by cofilin

Actin filament severing is critical for the dynamic turnover of cellular actin networks. Cofilin severs filaments, but additional factors may be required to increase severing efficiency in vivo. Srv2/cyclase-associated protein (CAP) is a widely expressed protein with a role in binding and recycling actin monomers ascribed to domains in its C-terminus (C-Srv2). In this paper, we report a new biochemical and cellular function for Srv2/CAP in directly catalyzing cofilin-mediated severing of filaments. This function is mediated by its N-terminal half (N-Srv2), and is physically and genetically separable from C-Srv2 activities. Using dual-color total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy, we determined that N-Srv2 stimulates filament disassembly by increasing the frequency of cofilin-mediated severing without affecting cofilin binding to filaments. Structural analysis shows that N-Srv2 forms novel hexameric star-shaped structures, and disrupting oligomerization impairs N-Srv2 activities and in vivo function. Further, genetic analysis shows that the combined activities of N-Srv2 and Aip1 are essential in vivo. These observations define a novel mechanism by which the combined activities of cofilin and Srv2/CAP lead to enhanced filament severing and support an emerging view that actin disassembly is controlled not by cofilin alone, but by a more complex set of factors working in concert.     

Xenopus actin-interacting protein 1 (XAip1) enhances cofilin fragmentation of filaments by capping filament ends

Xenopus actin-interacting protein 1 (XAip1) is thought to promote fragmentation of actin filaments by cofilin. To examine the mechanism of XAip1, we measured polymer lengths by fluorescence microscopy and the concentration of filament ends with an elongation assay. Cofilin creates ends by severing actin filaments. XAip1 alone does not sever actin filaments or prevent annealing/redistribution of mechanically severed filaments and has no effect on the concentration of ends available for subunit addition. In the presence of XAip1, the apparent filament fragmentation by cofilin is enhanced, but XAip1 reduces rather than increases the concentration of ends capable of adding subunits. Electron microscopy with gold-labeled antibodies showed that a low concentration of XAip1 bound preferentially to one end of the filament. A high concentration of XAip1 bound along the length of the filament. In the presence of gelsolin-actin to cap filament barbed ends, XAip1 does not enhance cofilin activity. We conclude that XAip1 caps the barbed end of filaments severed by cofilin. This capping blocks annealing and depolymerization and allows more extensive severing by cofilin.     

Cofilin/ADF is required for cell motility during Drosophila ovary development and oogenesis

The driving force behind cell motility is the actin cytoskeleton. Filopodia and lamellipodia are formed by the polymerization and extension of actin filaments towards the cell membrane. This polymerization at the barbed end of the filament is balanced by depolymerization at the pointed end, recycling the actin in a 'treadmilling' process. One protein involved in this process is cofilin/actin-depolymerizing factor (ADF), which can depolymerize actin filaments, allowing treadmilling to occur at an accelerated rate. Cofilin/ADF is an actin-binding protein that is required for actin-filament disassembly, cytokinesis and the organization of muscle actin filaments. There is also evidence that cofilin/ADF enhances cell motility, although a direct requirement in vivo has not yet been shown. Here we show that Drosophila cofilin/ADF, which is encoded by the twinstar (tsr) gene, promotes cell movements during ovary development and oogenesis. During larval development, cofilin/ADF is required for the cell rearrangement needed for formation of terminal filaments, stacks of somatic cells that are important for the initiation of ovarioles. It is also required for the migration of border cells during oogenesis. These results show that cofilin/ADF is an important regulator of actin-based cell motility during Drosophila development.     

Tropomodulin caps the pointed ends of actin filaments

Many proteins have been shown to cap the fast growing (barbed) ends of actin filaments, but none have been shown to block elongation and depolymerization at the slow growing (pointed) filament ends. Tropomodulin is a tropomyosin-binding protein originally isolated from red blood cells that has been localized by immunofluorescence staining to a site at or near the pointed ends of skeletal muscle thin filaments (Fowler, V. M., M. A., Sussman, P. G. Miller, B. E. Flucher, and M. P. Daniels. 1993. J. Cell Biol. 120: 411-420). Our experiments demonstrate that tropomodulin in conjunction with tropomyosin is a pointed end capping protein: it completely blocks both elongation and depolymerization at the pointed ends of tropomyosin-containing actin filaments in concentrations stoichiometric to the concentration of filament ends (Kd < or = 1 nM). In the absence of tropomyosin, tropomodulin acts as a "leaky" cap, partially inhibiting elongation and depolymerization at the pointed filament ends (Kd for inhibition of elongation = 0.1-0.4 microM). Thus, tropomodulin can bind directly to actin at the pointed filament end. Tropomodulin also doubles the critical concentration at the pointed ends of pure actin filaments without affecting either the rate of extent of polymerization at the barbed filament ends, indicating that tropomodulin does not sequester actin monomers. Our experiments provide direct biochemical evidence that tropomodulin binds to both the terminal tropomyosin and actin molecules at the pointed filament end, and is the long sought-after pointed end capping protein. We propose that tropomodulin plays a role in maintaining the narrow length distributions of the stable, tropomyosin-containing actin filaments in striated muscle and in red blood cells.     

Actin depolymerization drives actomyosin ring contraction during budding yeast cytokinesis

Actin filaments and myosin II are evolutionarily conserved force-generating components of the contractile ring during cytokinesis. Here we show that in budding yeast, actin filament depolymerization plays a major role in actomyosin ring constriction. Cofilin mutation or chemically stabilizing actin filaments attenuate actomyosin ring constriction. Deletion of myosin II motor domain or the myosin regulatory light chain reduced the contraction rate and also the rate of actin depolymerization in the ring. We constructed a quantitative microscopic model of actomyosin ring constriction via filament sliding driven by both actin depolymerization and myosin II motor activity. Model simulations based on experimental measurements support the notion that actin depolymerization is the predominant mechanism for ring constriction. The model predicts invariability of total contraction time regardless of the initial ring size, as originally reported for C. elegans embryonic cells. This prediction was validated in yeast cells of different sizes due to different ploidies.     

Tropomyosin stabilizes the pointed end of actin filaments by slowing depolymerization

Tropomyosin is postulated to confer stability to actin filaments in nonmuscle cells. We have found that a nonmuscle tropomyosin isolated from the intestinal epithelium can directly stabilize actin filaments by slowing depolymerization from the pointed, or slow-growing, filament end. Kinetics of elongation and depolymerization from the pointed end were measured in fluorescence assays using pyrenylactin filaments capped at the barbed end by villin. The initial pointed end depolymerization rate in the presence of tropomyosin averaged 56% of the control rate. Elongation from the pointed filament end in the presence of tropomyosin occurred at a lower free G-actin concentration, although the on rate constant, kappa p+, was not greatly affected. Furthermore, in the presence of tropomyosin, the free G-actin concentration was lower at steady state. Therefore, nonmuscle tropomyosin stabilizes the pointed filament end by lowering the off rate constant, kappa p-.     

Oryza sativa actin‐interacting protein 1 is required for rice growth by promoting actin turnover

Rapid actin turnover is essential for numerous actin‐based processes. However, how it is precisely regulated remains poorly understood. Actin‐interacting protein 1 (AIP1) has been shown to be an important factor by acting coordinately with actin‐depolymerizing factor (ADF)/cofilin in promoting actin depolymerization, the rate‐limiting factor in actin turnover. However, the molecular mechanism by which AIP1 promotes actin turnover remains largely unknown in plants. Here, we provide a demonstration that AIP1 promotes actin turnover, which is required for optimal growth of rice plants. Specific down‐regulation of OsAIP1 increased the level of filamentous actin and reduced actin turnover, whereas over‐expression of OsAIP1 induced fragmentation and depolymerization of actin filaments and enhanced actin turnover. In vitro biochemical characterization showed that, although OsAIP1 alone does not affect actin dynamics, it enhances ADF‐mediated actin depolymerization. It also caps the filament barbed end in the presence of ADF, but the capping activity is not required for their coordinated action. Real‐time visualization of single filament dynamics showed that OsAIP1 enhanced ADF‐mediated severing and dissociation of pointed end subunits. Consistent with this, the filament severing frequency and subunit off‐rate were enhanced in OsAIP1 over‐expressors but decreased in RNAi protoplasts. Importantly, OsAIP1 acts coordinately with ADF and profilin to induce massive net actin depolymerization, indicating that AIP1 plays a major role in the turnover of actin, which is required to optimize F‐actin levels in plants.     

Arabidopsis VILLIN1 generates actin filament cables that are resistant to depolymerization

Dynamic cytoplasmic streaming, organelle positioning, and nuclear migration use molecular tracks generated from actin filaments arrayed into higher-order structures like actin cables and bundles. How these arrays are formed and stabilized against cellular depolymerizing forces remains an open question. Villin and fimbrin are the best characterized actin-filament bundling or cross-linking proteins in plants and each is encoded by a multigene family of five members in Arabidopsis thaliana. The related villins and gelsolins are conserved proteins that are constructed from a core of six homologous gelsolin domains. Gelsolin is a calcium-regulated actin filament severing, nucleating and barbed end capping factor. Villin has a seventh domain at its C terminus, the villin headpiece, which can bind to an actin filament, conferring the ability to crosslink or bundle actin filaments. Many, but not all, villins retain the ability to sever, nucleate, and cap filaments. Here we have identified a putative calcium-insensitive villin isoform through comparison of sequence alignments between human gelsolin and plant villins with x-ray crystallography data for vertebrate gelsolin. VILLIN1 (VLN1) has the least well-conserved type 1 and type 2 calcium binding sites among the Arabidopsis VILLIN isoforms. Recombinant VLN1 binds to actin filaments with high affinity (K(d) approximately 1 microM) and generates bundled filament networks; both properties are independent of the free Ca(2+) concentration. Unlike human plasma gelsolin, VLN1 does not nucleate the assembly of filaments from monomer, does not block the polymerization of profilin-actin onto barbed ends, and does not stimulate depolymerization or sever preexisting filaments. In kinetic assays with ADF/cofilin, villin appears to bind first to growing filaments and protects filaments against ADF-mediated depolymerization. We propose that VLN1 is a major regulator of the formation and stability of actin filament bundles in plant cells and that it functions to maintain the cable network even in the presence of stimuli that result in depolymerization of other actin arrays.     

Identification of functional residues on Caenorhabditis elegans actin-interacting protein 1 (UNC-78) for disassembly of actin depolymerizing factor/cofilin-bound actin filaments

Actin-interacting protein 1 (AIP1) is a WD40 repeat protein that enhances actin filament disassembly in the presence of actin-depolymerizing factor (ADF)/cofilin. AIP1 also caps the barbed end of ADF/cofilin-bound actin filament. However, the mechanism by which AIP1 interacts with ADF/cofilin and actin is not clearly understood. We determined the crystal structure of Caenorhabditis elegans AIP1 (UNC-78), which revealed 14 WD40 modules arranged in two seven-bladed beta-propeller domains. The structure allowed for the mapping of conserved surface residues, and mutagenesis studies identified five residues that affected the ADF/cofilin-dependent actin filament disassembly activity. Mutations of these residues, which reside in blades 3 and 4 in the N-terminal propeller domain, had significant effects on the disassembly activity but did not alter the barbed end capping activity. These data support a model in which this conserved surface of AIP1 plays a direct role in enhancing fragmentation/depolymerization of ADF/cofilin-bound actin filaments but not in barbed end capping.     

Rate of treadmilling of actin filaments in vitro

Actin filaments capped at the barbed ends were formed by polymerizing monomeric actin onto a gelsolin-actin complex. The rate of depolymerization and polymerization of the pointed ends was determined by diluting gelsolin-capped actin filaments into various concentrations of monomeric actin. Under the conditions of the experiments (100 mM-KCl, 2 mM-MgCl2 at 37 degrees C) the rate constant of dissociation of subunits both from a shortening and a lengthening filament was found to be 0.21 s-1. As the rate of dissociation of subunits from the slow pointed end determines the rate of treadmilling, it is concluded that actin filaments treadmill with a rate of about 2 micron/h.