SNARE protein analog‐mediated membrane fusion

Fusion of lipid membranes to form a single bilayer is an essential process for life and provides important biological functions including neurotransmitter release. Membrane fusion proteins facilitate approximation of interacting membranes to overcome the energy barrier. In case of synaptic transmission, proteins involved are known as soluble N‐ethylmaleimide‐sensitive‐factor attachment receptor (SNARE) proteins. The SNAREs from synaptic vesicles interact with the SNAREs from the target membrane to form a coiled‐coil bundle of four helices, thus pulling the membranes tightly together and initiating fusion. However, it remains unclear how these proteins function at molecular level. Natural systems are often too complex to obtain unambiguous results. Simple model systems mimicking natural proteins in synthetic lipid bilayers are powerful tools for obtaining insights into this essential biological process. An important advantage of such systems is their well‐defined composition, which can be systematically varied in order to fully understand events at molecular level. In this review, selected model systems are presented based upon specific interactions between recognition units embedded in separate lipid bilayers mimicking native SNARE protein‐mediated membrane fusion. Copyright © 2015 European Peptide Society and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Structure of membrane‐associated neuronal SNARE complex: implication in neurotransmitter release

To enable fusion between biological membranes, t‐SNAREs and v‐SNARE present in opposing bilayers, interact and assemble in a circular configuration forming ring‐complexes, which establish continuity between the opposing membranes, in presence of calcium ions. The size of a t‐/v‐SNARE ring complex is dictated by the curvature of the opposing membrane. Hence smaller vesicles form small SNARE‐ring complexes, as opposed to large vesicles. Neuronal communication depends on the fusion of 40–50 nm in diameter membrane‐bound synaptic vesicles containing neurotransmitters at the nerve terminal. At the presynaptic membrane, 12–17 nm in diameter cup‐shaped neuronal porosomes are present where synaptic vesicles transiently dock and fuse. Studies demonstrate the presence of SNAREs at the porosome base. Atomic force microscopy (AFM), electron microscopy (EM), and electron density measurement studies demonstrate that at the porosome base, where synaptic vesicles dock and transiently fuse, proteins, possibly comprised of t‐SNAREs, are found assembled in a ring conformation. To further determine the structure and arrangement of the neuronal t‐/v‐SNARE complex, 50 nm t‐and v‐SNARE proteoliposomes were mixed, allowing t‐SNARE‐vesicles to interact with v‐SNARE vesicles, followed by detergent solubilization and imaging of the resultant t‐/v‐SNARE complexes formed using both AFM and EM. Our results demonstrate formation of 6–7 nm membrane‐directed self‐assembled t‐/v‐SNARE ring complexes, similar to, but twice as large as the ring structures present at the base of neuronal porosomes. The smaller SNARE ring at the porosome base may reflect the 3–4 nm base diameter, where 40–50 nm in diameter v‐SNARE‐associated synaptic vesicle transiently dock and fuse to release neurotransmitters.     

HOPS prevents the disassembly of trans‐SNARE complexes by Sec17p/Sec18p during membrane fusion

SNARE‐dependent membrane fusion requires the disassembly of cis‐SNARE complexes (formed by SNAREs anchored to one membrane) followed by the assembly of trans‐SNARE complexes (SNAREs anchored to two apposed membranes). Although SNARE complex disassembly and assembly might be thought to be opposing reactions, the proteins promoting disassembly (Sec17p/Sec18p) and assembly (the HOPS complex) work synergistically to support fusion. We now report that trans‐SNARE complexes formed during vacuole fusion are largely associated with Sec17p. Using a reconstituted proteoliposome fusion system, we show that trans‐SNARE complex, like cis‐SNARE complex, is sensitive to Sec17p/Sec18p mediated disassembly. Strikingly, HOPS inhibits the disassembly of SNARE complexes in the trans‐, but not in the cis‐, configuration. This selective HOPS preservation of trans‐SNARE complexes requires HOPS:SNARE recognition and is lost when the apposed bilayers are dissolved in Triton X‐100; it is also observed during fusion of isolated vacuoles. HOPS thus directs the Sec17p/Sec18p chaperone system to maximize functional trans‐SNARE complex for membrane fusion, a new role of tethering factors during membrane traffic.     

What precision‐protein‐tuning and nano‐resolved single molecule sciences can do for each other

While innovations in modern microscopy, spectroscopy, and nanoscopy techniques have made single molecule observation a standard in many laboratories, the actual design of meaningful fluorescence reporter systems now hinders major scientific breakthroughs. Even though the field of chemical biology is supercharging the fluorescence toolbox, surprisingly few strategies exist that make the transition from model systems to biologically relevant applications. At the same time, the number of microscopy techniques is growing dramatically. We explain our view on how the impact of modern technologies is influenced not only by further hard‐ and software developments, but also by the availability and suitability of protein‐engineering tools. We identify how the largely independent research fields of chemical biology and fluorescence nanoscopy can influence each other to synergistically drive future technology that can visualize the localization, structure, and dynamics of molecular function without constraints.     

Characterization of VAMP‐2 in the lung: implication in lung surfactant secretion

Lung surfactant is crucial for reducing the surface tension of alveolar space, thus preventing the alveoli from collapse. Lung surfactant is synthesized in alveolar epithelial type II cells and stored in lamellar bodies before being released via the fusion of lamellar bodies with the apical plasma membrane. SNAREs (soluble N‐ethylmaleimide‐sensitive fusion protein‐attachment protein receptors) play an essential role in membrane fusion. We have previously demonstrated the requirement of t‐SNARE (target SNARE) proteins, syntaxin 2 and SNAP‐23 (N‐ethylmaleimide‐sensitive factor‐attachment protein 23), in regulated surfactant secretion. Here, we characterized the distribution of VAMPs (vesicle‐associated membrane proteins) in rat lung and alveolar type II cells. VAMP‐2, ?3 and ?8 are shown in type II cells at both mRNA and protein levels. VAMP‐2 and ?8 were enriched in LB (lamellar body) fraction. Immunochemistry studies indicated that VAMP‐2 was co‐localized with the LB marker protein, LB‐180. Functionally, the cytoplasmic domain of VAMP‐2, but not VAMP‐8 inhibited surfactant secretion in type II cells. We suggest that VAMP‐2 is the v‐SNARE (vesicle SNARE) involved in regulated surfactant secretion.     

SNARE and regulatory proteins induce local membrane protrusions to prime docked vesicles for fast calcium‐triggered fusion

Synaptic vesicles fuse with the plasma membrane in response to Ca²⁺ influx, thereby releasing neurotransmitters into the synaptic cleft. The protein machinery that mediates this process, consisting of soluble N‐ethylmaleimide‐sensitive factor attachment protein receptors (SNAREs) and regulatory proteins, is well known, but the mechanisms by which these proteins prime synaptic membranes for fusion are debated. In this study, we applied large‐scale, automated cryo‐electron tomography to image an in vitro system that reconstitutes synaptic fusion. Our findings suggest that upon docking and priming of vesicles for fast Ca²⁺‐triggered fusion, SNARE proteins act in concert with regulatory proteins to induce a local protrusion in the plasma membrane, directed towards the primed vesicle. The SNAREs and regulatory proteins thereby stabilize the membrane in a high‐energy state from which the activation energy for fusion is profoundly reduced, allowing synchronous and instantaneous fusion upon release of the complexin clamp.     

Copper blocks V‐ATPase activity and SNARE complex formation to inhibit yeast vacuole fusion

The accumulation of copper in organisms can lead to altered functions of various pathways and become cytotoxic through the generation of reactive oxygen species. In yeast, cytotoxic metals such as Hg⁺, Cd²⁺ and Cu²⁺ are transported into the lumen of the vacuole through various pumps. Copper ions are initially transported into the cell by the copper transporter Ctr1 at the plasma membrane and sequestered by chaperones and other factors to prevent cellular damage by free cations. Excess copper ions can subsequently be transported into the vacuole lumen by an unknown mechanism. Transport across membranes requires the reduction of Cu²⁺ to Cu⁺. Labile copper ions can interact with membranes to alter fluidity, lateral phase separation and fusion. Here we found that CuCl₂ potently inhibited vacuole fusion by blocking SNARE pairing. This was accompanied by the inhibition of V‐ATPase H⁺ pumping. Deletion of the vacuolar reductase Fre6 had no effect on the inhibition of fusion by copper. This suggests that Cu²⁺ is responsible for the inhibition of vacuole fusion and V‐ATPase function. This notion is supported by the differential effects of chelators. The Cu²⁺‐specific chelator triethylenetetramine rescued fusion, whereas the Cu⁺‐specific chelator bathocuproine disulfonate had no effect on the inhibited fusion.     

Genetic evidence for an inhibitory role of tomosyn in insulin‐stimulated GLUT4 exocytosis

Exocytosis is a vesicle fusion process driven by soluble N‐ethylmaleimide‐sensitive factor attachment protein receptors (SNAREs). A classic exocytic pathway is insulin‐stimulated translocation of the glucose transporter type 4 (GLUT4) from intracellular vesicles to the plasma membrane in adipocytes and skeletal muscles. The GLUT4 exocytic pathway plays a central role in maintaining blood glucose homeostasis and is compromised in insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. A candidate regulator of GLUT4 exocytosis is tomosyn, a soluble protein expressed in adipocytes. Tomosyn directly binds to GLUT4 exocytic SNAREs in vitro but its role in GLUT4 exocytosis was unknown. In this work, we used CRISPR‐Cas9 genome editing to delete the two tomosyn‐encoding genes in adipocytes. We observed that both basal and insulin‐stimulated GLUT4 exocytosis was markedly elevated in the double knockout (DKO) cells. By contrast, adipocyte differentiation and insulin signaling remained intact in the DKO adipocytes. In a reconstituted liposome fusion assay, tomosyn inhibited all the SNARE complexes underlying GLUT4 exocytosis. The inhibitory activity of tomosyn was relieved by NSF and α‐SNAP, which act in concert to remove tomosyn from GLUT4 exocytic SNAREs. Together, these studies revealed an inhibitory role for tomosyn in insulin‐stimulated GLUT4 exocytosis in adipocytes. We suggest that tomosyn‐arrested SNAREs represent a reservoir of fusion capacity that could be harnessed to treat patients with insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes.     

Distinct features of multivesicular body‐lysosome fusion revealed by a new cell‐free content‐mixing assay

When marked for degradation, surface receptor and transporter proteins are internalized and delivered to endosomes where they are packaged into intralumenal vesicles (ILVs). Many rounds of ILV formation create multivesicular bodies (MVBs) that fuse with lysosomes exposing ILVs to hydrolases for catabolism. Despite being critical for protein degradation, the molecular underpinnings of MVB‐lysosome fusion remain unclear, although machinery underlying other lysosome fusion events is implicated. But how then is specificity conferred? And how is MVB maturation and fusion coordinated for efficient protein degradation? To address these questions, we developed a cell‐free MVB‐lysosome fusion assay using Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a model. After confirming that the Rab7 ortholog Ypt7 and the multisubunit tethering complex HOPS (ho motypic fusion and vacuole p rotein s orting complex) are required, we found that the Qa‐SNARE Pep12 distinguishes this event from homotypic lysosome fusion. Mutations that impair MVB maturation block fusion by preventing Ypt7 activation, confirming that a Rab‐cascade mechanism harmonizes MVB maturation with lysosome fusion.      

Steric hindrance of SNARE transmembrane domain organization impairs the hemifusion‐to‐fusion transition

SNAREs fuse membranes in several steps. Trans‐SNARE complexes juxtapose membranes, induce hemifused stalk structures, and open the fusion pore. A recent penetration model of fusion proposed that SNAREs force the hydrophilic C‐termini of their transmembrane domains through the hydrophobic core of the membrane(s). In contrast, the indentation model suggests that the C‐termini open the pore by locally compressing and deforming the stalk. Here we test these models in the context of yeast vacuole fusion. Addition of small hydrophilic tags renders bilayer penetration by the C‐termini energetically unlikely. It preserves fusion activity, however, arguing against the penetration model. Addition of large protein tags to the C‐termini permits SNARE activation, trans‐SNARE pairing, and hemifusion but abolishes pore opening. Fusion proceeds if the tags are detached from the membrane by a hydrophilic spacer or if only one side of the trans‐SNARE complex carries a protein tag. Thus, both sides of a trans‐SNARE complex can drive pore opening. Our results are consistent with an indentation model in which multiple SNARE C‐termini cooperate in opening the fusion pore by locally deforming the inner leaflets.     

Membrane tethering and fusion in the secretory and endocytic pathways

Studies of intracellular trafficking over the past decade or so have led to striking advances in our understanding of the molecular processes by which transport intermediates dock and fuse. SNARE proteins play a central role, assembling into complexes that bridge membranes and may catalyze membrane fusion directly. In general, different SNARE proteins operate in different intracellular trafficking pathways, so recent reports that SNARE assembly in vitro is promiscuous have come as something of a surprise. We propose a model in which proper SNARE assembly is under kinetic control, orchestrated by members of the Sec1 protein family, small GTP-binding Rab proteins, and a diverse assortment of tethering proteins.     

Syntaxin‐1 N‐peptide and Habc‐domain perform distinct essential functions in synaptic vesicle fusion

Among SNARE proteins mediating synaptic vesicle fusion, syntaxin‐1 uniquely includes an N‐terminal peptide (‘N‐peptide’) that binds to Munc18‐1, and a large, conserved H_abc‐domain that also binds to Munc18‐1. Previous in vitro studies suggested that the syntaxin‐1 N‐peptide is functionally important, whereas the syntaxin‐1 H_abc‐domain is not, but limited information is available about the in vivo functions of these syntaxin‐1 domains. Using rescue experiments in cultured syntaxin‐deficient neurons, we now show that the N‐peptide and the H_abc‐domain of syntaxin‐1 perform distinct and independent roles in synaptic vesicle fusion. Specifically, we found that the N‐peptide is essential for vesicle fusion as such, whereas the H_abc‐domain regulates this fusion, in part by forming the closed syntaxin‐1 conformation. Moreover, we observed that deletion of the H_abc‐domain but not deletion of the N‐peptide caused a loss of Munc18‐1 which results in a decrease in the readily releasable pool of vesicles at a synapse, suggesting that Munc18 binding to the H_abc‐domain stabilizes Munc18‐1. Thus, the N‐terminal syntaxin‐1 domains mediate different functions in synaptic vesicle fusion, probably via formation of distinct Munc18/SNARE‐protein complexes.     

Force‐induced globule–coil transition in laminin binding protein and its role for viral–cell membrane fusion

The specific interactions of the pairs laminin binding protein (LBP)–purified tick‐borne encephalitis viral surface protein E and certain recombinant fragments of this protein, as well as West Nile viral surface protein E and certain recombinant fragments of that protein, are studied by combined methods of single‐molecule dynamic force spectroscopy (SMDFS), enzyme immunoassay and optical surface waves‐based biosensor measurements. The experiments were performed at neutral pH (7.4) and acid pH (5.3) conditions. The data obtained confirm the role of LBP as a cell receptor for two typical viral species of the Flavivirus genus. A comparison of these data with similar data obtained for another cell receptor of this family, namely human αVβ3 integrin, reveals that both these receptors are very important. Studying the specific interaction between the cell receptors in question and specially prepared monoclonal antibodies against them, we could show that both interaction sites involved in the process of virus–cell interaction remain intact at pH 5.3. At the same time, for these acid conditions characteristic for an endosome during flavivirus–cell membrane fusion, SMDFS data reveal the existence of a force‐induced (effective already for forces as small as 30–70 pN) sharp globule–coil transition for LBP and LBP–fragments of protein E complexes. We argue that this conformational transformation, being an analog of abrupt first‐order phase transition and having similarity with the famous Rayleigh hydrodynamic instability, might be indispensable for the flavivirus–cell membrane fusion process. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

ATG14 controls SNARE-mediated autophagosome fusion with a lysosome

Autophagosome fusion with a lysosome constitutes the last barrier for autophagic degradation. It is speculated that this fusion process is precisely and tightly regulated. Recent genetic evidence suggests that a set of SNARE proteins, including STX17, SNAP29, and VAMP8, are essential for the fusion between autophagosomes and lysosomes. However, it remains unclear whether these SNAREs are fusion competent and how their fusogenic activity is specifically regulated during autophagy. Using a combination of biochemical, cell biology, and genetic approaches, we demonstrated that fusogenic activity of the autophagic SNARE complex is temporally and spatially controlled by ATG14/Barkor/Atg14L, an essential autophagy-specific regulator of the class III phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase complex (PtdIns3K). ATG14 directly binds to the STX17-SNAP29 binary complex on autophagosomes and promotes STX17-SNAP29-VAMP8-mediated autophagosome fusion with lysosomes. ATG14 homo-oligomerization is required for SNARE binding and fusion promotion, but is dispensable for PtdIns3K stimulation and autophagosome biogenesis. Consequently, ATG14 homo-oligomerization is required for autophagosome fusion with a lysosome, but is dispensable for autophagosome biogenesis. These data support a key role of ATG14 in controlling autophagosome fusion with a lysosome.     

The influenza fusion peptide promotes lipid polar head intrusion through hydrogen bonding with phosphates and N‐terminal membrane insertion depth

Influenza infection requires fusion between the virus envelope and a host cell endosomal membrane. The influenza hemagglutinin fusion peptide (FP) is essential to viral membrane fusion. It was recently proposed that FPs would fuse membranes by increasing lipid tail protrusion, a membrane fusion transition state. The details of how FPs induce lipid tail protrusion, however, remain to be elucidated. To decipher the molecular mechanism by which FPs promote lipid tail protrusion, we performed molecular dynamics simulations of the wild‐type (WT) FP, fusogenic mutant F9A, and nonfusogenic mutant W14A in model bilayers. This article presents the peptide–lipid interaction responsible for lipid tail protrusion and a related lipid perturbation, polar head intrusion, where polar heads are sunk under the membrane surface. The backbone amides from the four N‐terminal peptide residues, deeply inserted in the membrane, promoted both perturbations through H bonding with lipid phosphates. Polar head intrusion correlated with peptides N‐terminal insertion depth and activity: the N‐termini of WT and F9A were inserted deeper into the membrane than nonfusogenic W14A. Based on these results, we propose that FP‐induced polar head intrusion would complement lipid tail protrusion in catalyzing membrane fusion by reducing repulsions between juxtaposed membranes headgroups. The presented model provides a framework for further research on membrane fusion and influenza antivirals. Proteins 2014; 82:2118–2127. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

L‐OPA1 regulates mitoflash biogenesis independently from membrane fusion

Mitochondrial flashes mediated by optic atrophy 1 (OPA1) fusion protein are bioenergetic responses to stochastic drops in mitochondrial membrane potential (Δψ_m) whose origin is unclear. Using structurally distinct genetically encoded pH‐sensitive probes, we confirm that flashes are matrix alkalinization transients, thereby establishing the pH nature of these events, which we renamed “mitopHlashes”. Probes located in cristae or intermembrane space as verified by electron microscopy do not report pH changes during Δψ_m drops or respiratory chain inhibition. Opa1 ablation does not alter Δψ_m fluctuations but drastically decreases the efficiency of mitopHlash/Δψ_m coupling, which is restored by re‐expressing fusion‐deficient OPA1^K301A and preserved in cells lacking the outer‐membrane fusion proteins MFN1/2 or the OPA1 proteases OMA1 and YME1L, indicating that mitochondrial membrane fusion and OPA1 proteolytic processing are dispensable. pH/Δψ_m uncoupling occurs early during staurosporine‐induced apoptosis and is mitigated by OPA1 overexpression, suggesting that OPA1 maintains mitopHlash competence during stress conditions. We propose that OPA1 stabilizes respiratory chain supercomplexes in a conformation that enables respiring mitochondria to compensate a drop in Δψ_m by an explosive matrix pH flash.     

SNARE‐mediated membrane fusion arrests at pore expansion to regulate the volume of an organelle

Constitutive membrane fusion within eukaryotic cells is thought to be controlled at its initial steps, membrane tethering and SNARE complex assembly, and to rapidly proceed from there to full fusion. Although theory predicts that fusion pore expansion faces a major energy barrier and might hence be a rate‐limiting and regulated step, corresponding states with non‐expanding pores are difficult to assay and have remained elusive. Here, we show that vacuoles in living yeast are connected by a metastable, non‐expanding, nanoscopic fusion pore. This is their default state, from which full fusion is regulated. Molecular dynamics simulations suggest that SNAREs and the SM protein‐containing HOPS complex stabilize this pore against re‐closure. Expansion of the nanoscopic pore to full fusion can thus be triggered by osmotic pressure gradients, providing a simple mechanism to rapidly adapt organelle volume to increases in its content. Metastable, nanoscopic fusion pores are then not only a transient intermediate but can be a long‐lived, physiologically relevant and regulated state of SNARE‐dependent membrane fusion.     

Different combinations of atomic interactions predict protein‐small molecule and protein‐DNA/RNA affinities with similar accuracy

Interactions between proteins and other molecules play essential roles in all biological processes. Although it is widely held that a protein's ligand specificity is determined primarily by its three‐dimensional structure, the general principles by which structure determines ligand binding remain poorly understood. Here we use statistical analyses of a large number of protein?ligand complexes with associated binding‐affinity measurements to quantitatively characterize how combinations of atomic interactions contribute to ligand affinity. We find that there are significant differences in how atomic interactions determine ligand affinity for proteins that bind small chemical ligands, those that bind DNA/RNA and those that interact with other proteins. Although protein‐small molecule and protein‐DNA/RNA binding affinities can be accurately predicted from structural data, models predicting one type of interaction perform poorly on the others. Additionally, the particular combinations of atomic interactions required to predict binding affinity differed between small‐molecule and DNA/RNA data sets, consistent with the conclusion that the structural bases determining ligand affinity differ among interaction types. In contrast to what we observed for small‐molecule and DNA/RNA interactions, no statistical models were capable of predicting protein?protein affinity with >60% correlation. We demonstrate the potential usefulness of protein‐DNA/RNA binding prediction as a possible tool for high‐throughput virtual screening to guide laboratory investigations, suggesting that quantitative characterization of diverse molecular interactions may have practical applications as well as fundamentally advancing our understanding of how molecular structure translates into function. Proteins 2015; 83:2100–2114. © 2015 The Authors. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Structure of membrane tethers and their role in fusion

Vesicular transport between different membrane compartments is a key process in cell biology required for the exchange of material and information. The complex machinery that executes the formation and delivery of transport vesicles has been intensively studied and yielded a comprehensive view of the molecular principles that underlie the budding and fusion process. Tethering also represents an essential step in each trafficking pathway. It is mediated by Rab GTPases in concert with so‐called tethering factors, which constitute a structurally diverse family of proteins that share a similar role in promoting vesicular transport. By simultaneously binding to proteins and/or lipids on incoming vesicles and the target compartment, tethers are thought to bridge donor and acceptor membrane. They thus provide specificity while also promoting fusion. However, how tethering works at a mechanistic level is still elusive. We here discuss the recent advances in the structural and biochemical characterization of tethering complexes that provide novel insight on how these factors might contribute the efficiency of fusion.     

Vacuolar SNARE Protein Transmembrane Domains Serve as Nonspecific Membrane Anchors with Unequal Roles in Lipid Mixing

Membrane fusion is induced by SNARE complexes that are anchored in both fusion partners. SNAREs zipper up from the N to C terminus bringing the two membranes into close apposition. Their transmembrane domains (TMDs) might be mere anchoring devices, deforming bilayers by mechanical force. Structural studies suggested that TMDs might also perturb lipid structure by undergoing conformational transitions or by zipping up into the bilayer. Here, we tested this latter hypothesis, which predicts that the activity of SNAREs should depend on the primary sequence of their TMDs. We replaced the TMDs of all vacuolar SNAREs (Nyv1, Vam3, and Vti1) by a lipid anchor, by a TMD from a protein unrelated to the membrane fusion machinery, or by artificial leucine-valine sequences. Individual exchange of the native SNARE TMDs against an unrelated transmembrane anchor or an artificial leucine-valine sequence yielded normal fusion activities. Fusion activity was also preserved upon pairwise exchange of the TMDs against unrelated peptides, which eliminates the possibility for specific TMD-TMD interactions. Thus, a specific primary sequence or zippering beyond the SNARE domains is not a prerequisite for fusion. Lipid-anchored Vti1 was fully active, and lipid-anchored Nyv1 permitted the reaction to proceed up to hemifusion, and lipid-anchored Vam3 interfered already before hemifusion. The unequal contribution of proteinaceous TMDs on Vam3 and Nyv1 suggests that Q- and R-SNAREs might make different contributions to the hemifusion intermediate and the opening of the fusion pore. Furthermore, our data support the view that SNARE TMDs serve as nonspecific membrane anchors in vacuole fusion.