Human spire interacts with the barbed end of the actin filament

Spire is an actin nucleator that initiates actin polymerization at a specific place in the cell. Similar to the Arp2/3 complex, spire was initially considered to bind to the pointed end of the actin filament when it generates a new actin filament. Subsequently, spire was reported to be associated with the barbed end (B-end); thus, there is still no consensus regarding the end with which spire interacts. Here, we report direct evidence that spire binds to the B-end of the actin filament, under conditions where spire accelerates actin polymerization. Using electron microscopy, we visualized the location of spire bound to the filament by gold nanoparticle labeling of the histidine-tagged spire, and the polarity of the actin filament was determined by image analysis. In addition, our results suggest that multiple spires, linked through one gold nanoparticle, enhance the acceleration of actin polymerization. The B-end binding of spire provides the basis for understanding its functional mechanism in the cell.     

How capping protein binds the barbed end of the actin filament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.     

Cytochalasin B slows but does not prevent monomer addition at the barbed end of the actin filament

We used Limulus sperm acrosomal actin bundles to examine the effect of 2 microM cytochalasin B (CB) on elongation from both the barbed and pointed ends of the actin filament. In this paper we report that 2 microM CB does not prevent monomer addition onto the barbed ends of the acrosomal actin filaments. Barbed end assembly occurred over a range of actin monomer concentrations (0.2-6 microM) in solutions containing 75 mM KCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 10 mM Imidazole, pH 7.2, and 2 microM CB. However, the elongation rates were reduced such that the rates at the barbed end were approximately the same as those at the pointed end. The association and dissociation rate constants were 8- to 10-fold smaller at the barbed end in the presence of CB along with an accompanying twofold increase in critical concentration at that end. Over the time course of experimentation there was little evidence for potentiation by CB of the nucleation step of assembly. CB did not sever actin filaments; instead its presence increased the susceptibility of actin filaments to breakage from the gentle shear forces incurred during sample preparation. Under these experimental conditions, the assembly rate constants and critical concentration at the pointed end were the same in both the presence and the absence of CB.     

Ena/VASP proteins capture actin filament barbed ends

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

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

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

Profilin-actin complexes directly elongate actin filaments at the barbed end.

We demonstrate that the profilin-G-actin complex can elongate actin filaments directly at the barbed end but cannot bind to the pointed end. During elongation, the profilin-actin complex binds to the barbed filament end, whereupon profilin is released, leaving the actin molecule behind. This was first proposed by Tilney [Tilney, L. G., et al. (1983) J. Cell Biol. 97, 112-124] and demonstrated by Pollard and Cooper [(1984) Biochemistry 23, 6631-6641] by electron microscopy. We show that a model without any outside energy supply, in contrast to the mechanism proposed by Pollard and Cooper, can be fitted to our and their [Kaiser et al. (1986) J. Cell Biol. 102, 221-226] findings. Input of outside energy is necessary only if profilin-mediated elongation continues after free G-actin has been lowered to or below the critical concentration observed at the barbed end in the absence of profilin.     

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

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

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

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

VASP is a processive actin polymerase that requires monomeric actin for barbed end association

Ena/VASP proteins regulate the actin cytoskeleton during cell migration and morphogenesis and promote assembly of both filopodial and lamellipodial actin networks. To understand the molecular mechanisms underlying their cellular functions we used total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy to visualize VASP tetramers interacting with static and growing actin filaments in vitro. We observed multiple filament binding modes: (1) static side binding, (2) side binding with one-dimensional diffusion, and (3) processive barbed end tracking. Actin monomers antagonize side binding but promote high affinity (K(d) = 9 nM) barbed end attachment. In low ionic strength buffers, VASP tetramers are weakly processive (K(off) = 0.69 s(-1)) polymerases that deliver multiple actin monomers per barbed end-binding event and effectively antagonize filament capping. In higher ionic strength buffers, VASP requires profilin for effective polymerase and anti-capping activity. Based on our observations, we propose a mechanism that accounts for all three binding modes and provides a model for how VASP promotes actin filament assembly.     

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

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

Capping one end of an actin filament affects elongation at the other end

The rates of elongation at the free ends of actin filaments were compared to those of intact filaments, when the one end was masked with muscle beta-actinin or cytochalasin D, using fixed actoheavy meromyosin and Limulus acrosomal actin bundles as seeds. Experimental conditions were chosen so as to prevent spontaneous filament formation as far as possible. The rate of elongation at the barbed end of fixed actoheavy meromyosin was reduced to about one-fourth when the other pointed end was capped by beta-actinin, and that at the pointed end was reduced to one-third when the barbed end was blocked by cytochalasin D. Similar effects were also observed with the packed actin bundles of horseshoe crab sperm, although the decreases in elongation were less marked: 50-60% of the control both in the presence of beta-actinin and cytochalasin D. To explain the peculiar "end effect" described above, it is proposed that possible conformational changes at one end of an actin filament caused by the binding of a capping substance are transmitted successively to the other end so as to affect the elongation there.     

Conformational changes in actin filaments induced by formin binding to the barbed end

Formins bind actin filaments and play an essential role in the regulation of the actin cytoskeleton. In this work we describe details of the formin-induced conformational changes in actin filaments by fluorescence-lifetime and anisotropy-decay experiments. The results show that the binding of the formin homology 2 domain of a mammalian formin (mouse mDia1) to actin filaments resulted in a less rigid protein structure in the microenvironment of the Cys374 of actin, weakening of the interactions between neighboring actin protomers, and greater overall flexibility of the actin filaments. The formin effect is smaller at greater ionic strength. The results show that formin binding to the barbed end of actin filaments is responsible for the increase of flexibility of actin filaments. One formin dimer can affect the dynamic properties of an entire filament. Analyses of the results obtained at various formin/actin concentration ratios indicate that at least 160 actin protomers are affected by the binding of a single formin dimer to the barbed end of a filament.     

Under physiological conditions actin disassembles slowly from the nonpreferred end of an actin filament

Incubation of the isolated acrosomal bundles of Limulus sperm with skeletal muscle actin results in assembly of actin onto both ends of the bundles. Because of the taper of these cross-linked bundles of actin filaments, one can distinguish directly the preferred end for assembly from the nonpreferred end. Loss of growth with time from the nonpreferred end was directly assessed by electron microscopy and found to be dependent upon salt concentration. Under physiological conditions (100 mM KCl, 1 mM MgCl2) and excess ATP (0.5 mM), depolymerization of the newly assembled actin filaments at the nonpreferred end over an 8-h period was 0.024 micron/h. Thus, even after 8 h, 63% of the bundles retained significant growth on their nonpreferred ends, the average length being 0.21 micron +/- 0.04. However, in the presence of 1.2 mM CaCl2, disassembly of actin monomers from the nonpreferred end increased substantially. By 8 h, only 7% of the bundles retained any actin growth on the nonpreferred ends, and the depolymerization rate off the nonpreferred end was 0.087 micron/h. From these results we conclude that, in the absence of other cellular factors, disassembly of actin subunits from actin filaments (subunit exchange) is too slow to influence most of the motile events that occur in cells. We discuss how this relates to treadmilling.     

Capping complex formation at the slow-growing end of the actin filament

Actin filaments are polar; their barbed (fast-growing) and pointed (slow-growing) ends differ in structure and dynamic properties. The slow-growing end is regulated by tropomodulins, a family of capping proteins that require tropomyosins for optimal function. There are four tropomodulin isoforms; their distributions vary depending on tissue type and change during development. The C-terminal half of tropomodulin contains one compact domain represented by alternating α-helices and β-structures. The tropomyosin-independent actin-capping site is located at the C-terminus. The N-terminal half has no regular structure; however, it contains a tropomyosin-dependent actin-capping site and two tropomyosin-binding sites. One tropomodulin molecule can bind two tropomyosin molecules. Effectiveness of tropomodulin binding to tropomyosin depends on the tropomyosin isoform. Regulation of tropomodulin binding at the pointed end as well as capping effectiveness in the presence of specific tropomyosins may affect formation of local cytoskeleton and dynamics of actin filaments in cells.     

F-actin慢生长端的盖帽蛋白:红细胞原肌球调节蛋白

红细胞原肌球调节蛋白(erythrocyte tropomodulin,E-Tmod)是从红细胞膜中提取的原肌球蛋白(tropomyosin,TM)的结合蛋白.其N-端有两个TM结合位点和一个TM依赖的actin结合位点,C-端有5个富含亮氨酸的重复序列和一个TM非依赖的actin结合位点.作为F-actin慢生长端唯一的盖帽蛋白,E-Tmod与TM的N-端结合并同时与actin结合,减慢由TM包被的F-actin的解聚速度.E-Tmod编码基因高度保守,在红细胞、心肌细胞等细胞中广泛表达.E-Tmod对于F-actin和细胞骨架的组织以及对细胞力学特性的保持具有至关重要的作用.