©1996 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.
-Thymosins Are Not Simple Actin Monomer Buffering Proteins
INSIGHTS FROM OVEREXPRESSION STUDIES (*)

(Received for publication, October 17, 1995; and in revised form, January 8, 1996)

Hui-Qiao Sun Katarzyna Kwiatkowska Helen Lu Yin (§)

From the Department of Physiology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas 75235-9040

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
FOOTNOTES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES

ABSTRACT

beta-Thymosins are the currently favored candidates for maintaining the large actin monomer (G-actin) pool in living cells. To determine if beta-thymosin behaves like a simple G-actin buffering agent in the complex environment of a cell, we overexpressed thymosin beta10 (Tbeta10) in NIH3T3 cells and determined the effect on the monomer/polymer equilibrium. Tbeta10 is the predominant beta-thymosin isoform in the NIH3T3 cell line, and it is present in approximately equal molar ratio to profilin and cofilin/actin depolymerizing factor, two other well characterized actin monomer binding proteins. Clonal cell lines that overexpressed three times more Tbeta10 had 23-33% more polymerized actin than control cells, and the filaments appeared thicker after staining with fluorescent phalloidin. There was no change in total actin, profilin, and cofilin/actin depolymerizing factor content. The overexpressing cells were more motile; they spread faster and had higher chemotactic and wound healing activity. Assuming that there is no compensatory inactivation of the other classes of monomer binding proteins, our paradoxical observation can be accounted for quantitatively by a parallel in vitro study (Carlier, M.-F., Didry, D., Erk, I., Lepault, J., Van Troys, L., Vanderkekove, J., Perelroizen, I., Yin, H. L., Doi, Y., and Pantaloni, D.,(1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 9231-9239). beta-Thymosin at levels comparable with that found in the overexpressing cells binds actin filaments and decreases the critical concentration (C(c)) for actin polymerization. This reduces the monomer buffering ability of beta-thymosin, so that above a certain threshold an incremental increase in thymosin does not lead to a corresponding increase in G-actin. Furthermore, the decrease in C(c) reduces the buffering capacity of the other actin monomer binding proteins. As a consequence, an increase in beta-thymosin does not necessarily result in a proportionate increase in actin monomer content in a complex environment containing other actin monomer binding proteins. The outcome depends on the level of beta-thymosin expression relative to the composition of the other actin monomer binding protien. Our results suggest that beta-thymosins are not simple actin buffering proteins and that their biphasic action may have physiological significance.


INTRODUCTION

The actin cytoskeleton of nonmuscle cells responds to extracellular stimuli through a spatially and temporally regulated series of polymerization and depolymerization reactions. Monomer binding proteins, such as beta-thymosin, ADF(^1)/cofilin, and profilin, buffer actin monomers (G-actin) to prevent them from polymerizing spontaneously (reviewed in (1) and (2) )). During cell activation, polymerization is initiated by filament uncapping at the cell cortex, which lowers the critical concentration for actin polymerization(1, 3, 4, 5, 6) . Actin monomer binding proteins amplify the effect of filament uncapping because they create a reservoir of G-actin that can be desequestered to supply actin to filament ends. Furthermore, because profilin-actin complexes facilitate barbed end filament growth (7) and profilin competes with beta-thymosin for actin, profilin can tap into the beta-thymosin-actin pool (7, 8, 9) to fuel massive polymerization. After polymerization, actin filaments are transported centripetally(10, 11) and subsequently depolymerize(12, 13) . The newly released actin subunits are captured by monomer-binding proteins and recycled toward the cell front.

Among the monomer-binding proteins identified thus far, beta-thymosins appear to best fulfill the criteria for a simple monomer-buffering protein because no interaction with other proteins and no regulation of their activity has been described(14, 15, 16) . Up until now, much of the focus has been on beta-thymosin in neutrophils and platelets that contain sufficient beta-thymosins to sequester the bulk of G-actin(15, 16) . The contributions of other monomer-binding proteins are therefore ignored. However, in many other types of cells, beta-thymosin does not predominate, and its contribution has to be considered in the context of the other G-actin-binding proteins.

In this paper, we examined the fundamental assumption that beta-thymosin behaves like a simple actin monomer-buffering protein in the intracellular milieu. beta-Thymosin was overexpressed to a moderate level by cDNA mediated transfection, and the consequences on the polymer/monomer equilibrium were examined. Previous overexpression studies (17, 18, 19) demonstrate that swamping the cell with a large excess of beta-thymosin causes extensive actin disassembly, but the cortical filaments are surprisingly resistant and the relation between beta-thymosin dose and depolymerization response is not analyzed quantitatively. We find that a 3-fold increase in the predominant beta-thymosin isoform (Tbeta10) in NIH3T3 cells enhanced cell spreading, chemotaxis, and wound healing. It decreased the G-actin pool, contrary to the expectation for an exclusively buffering function. The paradoxical result may be explained by our recent in vitro studies, which show that thymosin beta4 (Tbeta4), an isoform that is functionally identical to Tbeta10(14) , binds actin filaments with low affinity and decreases the C(c)(47) . This reduces the impact of beta-thymosin overexpression and has repercussions for all the other monomer-binding proteins in the intracellular milieu as well.


EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Cell Culture and Transfection

The rat Tbeta10 cDNA (17) was inserted through the HindIII and BamHI sites into LK588, a beta-actin promoter driven expression vector that contains a neomycin resistance gene(21) . NIH3T3 cells maintained in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (FCS) were transfected by the Lipofectin protocol (Life Technologies, Inc.) and selected with G418 as described previously(22) . Control clones (Ctrl) were transfected with vector containing no Tbeta10 insert.

For some experiments, NIH3T3 cells were starved in DMEM/0.2% serum for 24 h and in a completely defined 1:1 DMEM/Ham's F-12 medium supplemented with 20 mM Hepes, pH 7.4, 0.5 mg/ml bovine serum albumin, 1 µg/ml insulin, and 1 µg/ml transferrin (Sigma) (Q-medium) for an additional 18 h.

Quantitative Immunoblotting

Rabbit anti-Tbeta10 and anti-Tbeta4 antibodies were generated by immunizing against synthetic peptides corresponding to the 11 carboxyl-terminal amino acids of each protein as described(23) . Their isoform specificity was established previously(14, 17, 23) . Monoclonal anti-actin (clone C4) was obtained from Boehringer Mannheim, and rabbit anti-bovine spleen profilin (24) and anti-mouse gelsolin (25) were generated in this laboratory. Rabbit anti-chicken ADF (26) and monoclonal anti-chicken cofilin (MAB22) (27) were gifts from J. Bamburg (Colorado State University) and T. Obinata (Chiba University, Japan), respectively.

For beta-thymosin detection, cells were trypsinized from the monolayers and washed in phosphate-buffered saline. They were resuspended in a buffer containing 100 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4, 4 mM MgCl(2), 1.8 mM CaCl(2), 50 mM KCl, 2 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, and 2 µg/ml each of aprotinin, leupeptin, and pepstatin and sonicated with a microtip probe for 30 s at 4 °C. An aliquot was removed for protein quantitation by the micro-BCA method (Pierce), and the remainder was centrifuged at 14,000 rpm for 10 min in an Eppendorf microfuge. The supernatant was boiled in SDS gel sample buffer and electrophoresed in 5-20% gradient SDS-polyacrylamide gels. Western blotting was performed as described previously(17) , using glutaraldehyde to cross-link beta-thymosin in the acrylamide gel prior to electrophoretic transfer to enhance retention on the nitrocellulose membrane. Greater than 99% of beta-thymosin was recovered in the supernatant.

For detection of proteins other than beta-thymosin, cells were lysed in cold RIPA buffer (50 mM NaCl, 0.1% SDS, 1% Nonidet P-40, 2 mM EDTA, 2 mM EGTA, 50 mM Hepes, pH 7.4) containing the protease inhibitor mixture. Polypeptides in SDS gels were transferred to nitrocellulose without glutaraldehyde fixation (28) .

Immunoreactive bands were visualized with the ECL detection system (Amersham Corp.). The intensity of the stained bands was determined by scanning with a Molecular Dynamics 300A computing densitometer. Serial dilutions of the cell lysates were analyzed, and samples within the linear range were compared with actin or actin-binding protein standards to estimate their content. Purified recombinant rat Tbeta4 and Tbeta10 concentrations were determined by amino acid analyses. Bovine spleen profilin, rabbit muscle actin, human plasma gelsolin, recombinant chicken ADF, and chicken cofilin (gifts of J. Bamburg) were prepared by standard methods, and their protein concentrations were determined by the micro-BCA method.

Analytical HPLC

The amount of beta-thymosins in cells was determined by reverse phase HPLC of the perchloric acid-soluble cell extract(16) . 25-67 µl samples were analyzed using a 5-µm C18 column (2.1 times 150 mm) and an ISCO chromatograph. Solvent A was 10 mM ammonium acetate, pH 6.0, solvent B was acetonitrile, and the resolving gradient was from 12-20% B in 14 min at 0.5 ml/min.(19) . The concentrations of beta-thymosins were determined from the integrated area of the peaks, calibrated against a known amount of pure Tbeta4.

Northern Blotting

Total mouse cell RNA prepared as described in (29) was electrophoresed, blotted onto GeneScreen Plus (DuPont NEN), and hybridized with Tbeta10 or Tbeta4 probes that were labeled by random priming, in 50% formamide at 42 °C. The Tbeta10 probe encompassed the entire 444 base pairs of the full-length rat Tbeta10 cDNA(14) . The Tbeta4 probe was derived from a mouse genomic clone that encompassed 331 base pairs of the Tbeta4 mRNA, including 33 base pairs of translated sequence at the COOH terminus of Tbeta4 and the contiguous 3`-untranslated sequence(30) .

Fluorescence Microscopy and Image Processing

NIH3T3 cells were fixed with 3% paraformaldehyde in PHEM buffer (60 mM Pipes, 25 mM Hepes, 10 mM EGTA, 4 mM MgCl(2), pH 6.9) for 30 min, quenched with 50 mM NH(4)Cl for 10 min, and permeabilized with ice-cold 0.1% Triton X-100 for 7 min. They were labeled with phalloidin conjugated with rhodamine (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR) for 1 h in PHEM buffer containing 1% goat serum globulins. Coverslips were mounted in moviol containing 2.5% DABCO to retard photobleaching.

Fluorescence images were acquired with a cooled CCD camera (Photometrics, Tuscon, AZ) on an Axiovert 135 microscope (Carl Zeiss Instruments, Thornwood, NY) using 63times or 100times oil immersion Plan-Neofluar objectives.

Morphometric Analysis

Diameter

Cells were trypsinized, washed, and suspended at 3 times 10^5/ml in DMEM without serum, applied to coverslips, and mounted onto a microscope stage at 18 °C. They were viewed using a 32times LD Ph1 Acrostimat lens with an Axiovert 135 microscope within 30 min of plating to minimize cell spreading. Images were digitized using a camera (Dage-MTI, Michigan City, IN) and a Perceptics Pixel Pipeline video acquisition board (Perceptics, Knoxville, TN) in a Mac IIx. NIH-Image was used for morphometric analysis. Three separate experiments were performed, and the diameters of more than 80 cells were measured for each cell line. Cells that were not round were excluded. Mean values of the cell diameter were used to calculate the cell volume with the formula for a sphere.

Nucleus

The diameters of nuclei were measured from images of cells that were plated for several hours in the presence of serum and were still approximately spherical. The cells were stained with rhodamine phalloidin, which labeled the cytoplasm but not the nucleus. The nuclear volume was subtracted from the cell volume determined in suspension to give the cytoplasmic volume. A cytoplasmic volume of 48 ± 3% (n = 20) cell volume was obtained.

Length and Width

Cells were plated on glass coverslips at low density in the presence of 10% FCS for 24 h. Dimensions were measured in images captured in the Bio-Rad confocal microscope.

Quantitation of Actin Filament Content

Actin filament content was determined using two methods. First, bulk actin filament content in cell monolayers was determined by measuring rhodamine-phalloidin binding in a fluorimeter as described in (24) and (31) . Monolayers were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde in phosphate-buffered saline containing 2 mM MgCl(2) and 3 mM EGTA and permeabilized with 0.1% Triton X-100. They were labeled with 0.7 µM rhodamine-phalloidin for 1 h at room temperature. Bound phalloidin was extracted with methanol, and fluorescence was measured at excitation/emission wavelengths of 540/570 nm and normalized against total protein content in parallel coverslips. Nonspecific binding was determined by adding 10-fold excess unlabeled phalloidin and was found to be less than 5% of total binding. The assay was within the linear range of the binding curve, determined by varying the concentration of cells used. Experiments were performed in duplicate. Second, rhodamine-phalloidin binding to individual cells was quantitated by image processing. Digital fluorescence images, acquired under identical nonsaturating optical conditions (constant gain and background correction), were analyzed with the BDS Image Program(22, 24) . Following background subtraction, contours of cells were carefully delineated, and the area was recorded. Integrated fluorescence intensities were determined. Cells were chosen randomly from different fields and TK and Ctrl cells were analyzed in a double-blind fashion.

Cell Spreading Assay

Cells were trypsinized and plated in 10% FCS/DMEM onto coverslips that had been previously exposed to 10% FCS for 24 h. At timed intervals, coverslips were fixed, permeabilized, and stained with rhodamine-phalloidin. Adherent cells with irregular outlines were counted and expressed as the percentage of total adherent cells. TK and Ctrl samples were randomized for double-blind analysis.

Chemotaxis

5 times 10^4 cells (in 50 µl) were loaded in the top wells of a modified 48-well Boyden chamber (Nucleopore, Pleasanton, CA) and 28 µl of medium containing 10% FCS was added to the bottom wells (22) . The wells were separated by a 5-µm polycarbonate filter, and three randomly selected wells were used per determination. After 3-6 h at 37 °C, the filter was fixed and stained with Diff-Quik (Baxter, McGaw Park, IL). Cells that migrated through the filter were scored under a 20times microscope objective.

Wound Healing Assay

The rate of migration of cells to cover a ``wound'' made by scratching an approximately 1-mm line in a confluent monolayer was measured as described(22) .


RESULTS

Stable Overexpression of Tbeta10

After NIH3T3 cells were transfected with a Tbeta10-expression vector containing a neo gene and selected with G418, many neomycin-resistant cell lines were obtained. Western blotting with a Tbeta10-specific antibody showed that there was a range of Tbeta10 overexpression (Fig. 1A). Clones TK4 and TK9 had 1.8- and 2.9-fold more Tbeta10 than cells transfected with the control vector (Ctrl) (Table 1). In contrast, a Tbeta4-specific antibody that detected purified Tbeta4 and Tbeta4 in CV1 cells was not positive against Ctrl or TK9 cells (Fig. 1B) even when four times more cell proteins were loaded.


Figure 1: Analysis of Tbeta10 overexpression. A, Western blot. Tbeta10 antibody was used to probe NIH3T3 cells transfected with Ctrl or Tbeta10 expression vector. 15 µg of cell extracts were analyzed. B, Western blot. Tbeta4 antibody was used to probe purified Tbeta4 standards, CV1 and NIH3T3 cells. Lanes 1-3, 7, 14, 28 ng of Tbeta4; lanes 4 and 5, 1.8 and 3.8 µg of CV1 extract; lanes 6 and 7, 15 µg of Ctrl and TK9 extracts. The streak between lanes 5 and 6 was due to gel loading problems and should be ignored. C, analytical HPLC. Equal amount of lysate samples were analyzed. The arrow indicates the peak that is not Tbeta4. The TK9 tracing was more compressed relative to the others. D, Northern blot. Right panel, Tbeta10 cDNA probe was used to probe U937, TK9, and Ctrl RNA. Left panel, Tbeta4 probe. 10 µg of total RNA was analyzed per lane.





Tbeta10 overexpression and the predominance of endogenous Tbeta10 over Tbeta4 were confirmed by analytical HPLC (Fig. 1C). CV1, which contains abundant Tbeta4 and Tbeta10(17) , was used as a standard for identifying the thymosin isoforms in the HPLC profiles. Two major peaks that coincided with purified Tbeta4 and Tbeta10 standards were present at a 1.7:1 ratio. Ctrl NIH3T3 cells had a small Tbeta10 peak and no peak coinciding with the Tbeta4 standard. The neighboring peak (indicated by an arrow), which overlapped slightly with the tail end of the bona fide Tbeta4 peak, did not shift the mobility of actin on nondenaturing gels (data not shown) and was unlikely to be Tbeta4. TK4 and TK9 had progressively more Tbeta10 than Ctrl cells. The extent of overexpression, based on the integrated area under the peaks, were 1.6- and 2.7-fold, respectively (Table 1). These values were similar to Western blot estimates.

The abundance of Tbeta10 relative to Tbeta4 in Ctrl cells and the overexpression of Tbeta10 in TK cells were also evident at the mRNA level. In Northern blots, the Tbeta10-specific probe hybridized strongly with Ctrl cells and more strongly with the Tbeta10-transfected clone TK9 (Fig. 1D). Only one positive band was detected in the overexpressing cells, because the Tbeta10 overexpression construct was approximately the same size as the Tbeta10 mRNA. In contrast, the Tbeta4-specific probe gave minimal signal for either clone, even though it hybridized strongly to U937, a mouse macrophage cell line. These results demonstrated that the Tbeta10 and Tbeta4 probes were specific for each mRNA species and Tbeta10 was the dominant isoform in the NIH3T3 line used in these studies.

Actin Monomer Sequestering Protein Content

Previously published data suggest that beta-thymosins are passive actin sequestering proteins that bind monomers as governed by mass action(7, 15, 16, 32) . If this were the case, the amount of actin bound to Tbeta10 should increase with Tbeta10 overexpression. The percentage of increase in the unpolymerized actin pool (A(u)) depends on the Tbeta10 content relative to that of other G-actin sequestering proteins and the concentration of free G-actin at steady state (critical concentration, C(c)), which is itself regulated by filament capping(7, 9, 33) . The value of A(u) is determined by the following equation:

where S is the concentration of G-actin-binding proteins S(i), and K(d) is the equilibrium dissociation constant for the binding of S(i) to G-actin.

Tbeta10 and actin accounted for 0.06 ± 0.007 and 2.8 ± 0.1% (average and range) of total cell proteins in Ctrl cells, respectively (Table 2). Based on the protein content per cell and cell diameter (Table 3), the cytoplasmic concentrations of Tbeta10 and actin in Ctrl cells were 8.8 and 44.9 µM, respectively. The unpolymerized actin pool, estimated from the amount of actin that was Triton X-100 soluble after a 10-min centrifugation at 14,000 rpm in an Eppendorf microfuge, was 46.6 ± 5.2% (mean ± S.E., n = 5) of the total actin. Because actin filaments that contain fewer than 50 monomers and are not cross-linked to the cytoskeleton will not pellet under these conditions(34) , the figure for unpolymerized actin is likely to be overestimated somewhat. Thus, the upper limit for unpolymerized actin was 20.9 µM.





The amount of Tbeta10-G-actin complex [TA] can be calculated as follows:

where [T(O)] is the Tbeta10 concentration, K(d)(T) is the equilibrium dissociation constant for the TA complex. Using values of 0.6 µM for K(d)(T)(14, 32) and 0.5 µM for C(c) (when barbed ends of actin filaments are capped as would be expected in ``resting'' cells), 8.8 µM Tbeta10 would bind 4 µM actin monomers (Table 2). Assuming that the other actin monomer-binding proteins were maximally active and that each bound a single actin in a mutually exclusive manner(8) , the total actin sequestered would be 15.6 µM, and [A(u)] would be 16.1 µM. The latter value was in reasonable agreement with the experimentally determined upper limit of 20.9 µM.

TK9 that overexpressed Tbeta10 2.9-fold had a cytoplasmic Tbeta10 concentration of 25.5 µM. Western blotting showed the concentrations of actin, and the other actin-binding protein were not altered significantly in TK cells. For example, TK9 had 97.8 ± 0.7% (mean ± S.E., n = 5) and 102.8 ± 0.5% (n = 5) of the actin and profilin, respectively, of Ctrl cells. Assuming that there is no change in C(c) or K(d) in TK cells, [TA] would increase to 11.6 µM, and [A(u)] would be 23.7 µM (compared with 16.1 µM for Ctrl). This represented a 47.2% increase in [A(u)], which would be at the expense of polymerized actin.

Actin Filament Content

Direct measurement of polymerized actin in the overexpressing cells showed that contrary to the above prediction, TK cells had more F-actin than Ctrl. Quantitation of rhodamine phalloidin bound to cells showed that there was an increase in actin filament content in each of the two TK cell lines tested (Table 1). Likewise, direct measurement of fluorescence intensity associated with individual cells (Fig. 2) by image analysis confirmed that the average total fluorescence intensity of fully spread TK9 was 1.3-fold higher than Ctrl cells (Table 3). The amount of F-actin per unit surface area and the percentage of Triton X-100 extractable actin (data not shown) were not changed. Similar results were obtained with several other pairs of TK and Ctrl cells.


Figure 2: Effect of Tbeta10 overexpression on actin filament organization. NIH3T3 cell lines transfected with Ctrl or Tbeta10 vectors were fixed, permeabilized, and stained with rhodamine phalloidin. A and C, Ctrl and TK9 cells maintained in DMEM/10% FCS. B and D, Ctrl and TK9 cells that were serum-deprived. Bar, 20 µm.



Actin Filament Organization

Microscopic examination revealed that TK cells had an altered actin filament organization and morphology. Unlike Ctrl cells, which had a characteristic fibroblast spindle shape (Fig. 2A), TK cells that had been plated for more than 24 h were larger and more polygonal (Fig. 2C). Direct measurements of cell dimensions showed that Ctrl and TK9 cells had length-to-width ratios of 2.5 and 1.2, respectively (Table 3). Well spread TK cells had many long cell processes. Their actin stress fibers were more brightly stained with phalloidin than Ctrl cells; they appeared thicker and often formed clumps. The difference in stress fiber staining between TK and Ctrl was more exaggerated after starvation. As reported previously(25) , serum-deprived Ctrl fibroblasts were flatter and had thinner stress fibers than cells maintained in serum (Fig. 2B). In contrast, TK cells continued to have thick stress fibers (Fig. 2D), although there was a reduction in the number of cell processes, as would be consistent with a more quiescent state.

Cell Spreading

When fully spread, TK9 had 1.3-fold more surface area than Ctrl cells (Table 3). Because they had similar diameters (and hence volumes) when in suspension and similar protein content per cell as well, the increase in TK surface area after attachment was most likely due to increased cell spreading.

This was confirmed directly from the rate of spreading after reseeding. Within 0.5 h of plating, TK cells were more spread than Ctrl cells (Fig. 3), and the cell margins were highly stained with phalloidin. Cell spreading was quantitated by tallying the number of adherent cells that did not have a round shape. TK9 had almost twice as many spread cells as Ctrl at 0.7, 1, and 1.5 h after plating (Fig. 4B). After 2 h, TK and Ctrl had comparable numbers of spread cells. TK4 spread at a rate intermediate between that of TK9 and Ctrl. Direct quantitation of phalloidin binding showed that at zero time, TK9 cells in suspension had 1.19 ± 0.05 times (n = 6; p < 0.05) more polymerized actin than Ctrl. One hour after plating, TK had 1.25 ± 0.06 times (n = 6; p < 0.05) more polymerized actin than Ctrl (Fig. 4A). Therefore, TK cells in suspension had more polymerized actin than Ctrl, and the difference was maintained during spreading.


Figure 3: Effect of Tbeta10 overexpression on cell spreading. Cells were trypsinized, resuspended in DMEM/10% FCS, and plated on coverslips at 37 °C. Coverslips were fixed at intervals and labeled with rhodamine-phalloidin after permeabilization. A, C, E, G, and I, Ctrl cells 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, and 5 h after plating. B, D, F, H, and J, TK9 cells after similar intervals. Bar, 60 µm.




Figure 4: Effect of Tbeta10 overexpression on cell spreading and actin polymerization. A, quantitation of phalloidin binding to cells during spreading. The error bars are S.E. (n = 6). B, percentage of cell spread as a function of time. Cells that had irregular outlines were scored and expressed as a percentage of total cells. 100-120 cells from each cell line were counted per time point. The results shown were from one experiment. Similar results were obtained with two other experiments.



Chemotaxis and Wound Healing

TK cells had increased chemotactic ability compared with Ctrl cells (Table 1). The difference between pooled data from multiple experiments was statistically significant, with confidence intervals (p) of less than 0.01-0.001.

Likewise, motility as measured by the rate of migration of cells into monolayer wounds was also significantly higher in TK than Ctrl. The extent of increase was not as high as in chemotaxis.


DISCUSSION

The actin monomer pool in cells is an important component of the actin machinery(1, 9) , and beta-thymosins are the currently favored candidates for maintaining actin in the reserve pool(2, 35) . In this paper, we find that Tbeta10 does not behave like a simple G-actin buffering agent in vivo. Raising Tbeta10 concentration to a modest extent in NIH3T3 fibroblasts unexpectedly promotes filament assembly. Consistent with an increase in F-actin, the cells are more motile in a variety of actin-based activity, including spreading, chemotaxis, and wound healing. This phenotype is observed with several overexpressing cell lines, confirming that it is a direct consequence of overexpression and not due to clonal variations or artefacts of DNA integration. Enhancement of actin polymerization is contrary to what is expected for an increase in monomer buffering capacity and suggests that additional factors are involved. A discrepancy between beta-thymosin level and actin monomer pool size has also been reported by another group in a preliminary form(35, 36) .

Comparing the beta-Thymosin Overexpression Phenotype to That of Profilin, Gelsolin, and CapG

Cells overexpressing beta-thymosin are more motile in each of the three broad categories of actin-based forward movement, a classification proposed recently(37) . These include: first, lamellipodial extension, which is primarily driven by the polymerization of actin monomers at the cell edge (chemotaxis and membrane ruffling are good examples); second, forward movement of the cell edge driven by actomyosin contraction, as seen in wound healing; and third, postmitotic cell spreading, which is driven by myosin transporting dorsal actin filaments forward against anchored ventral filaments. Spreading after replating is morphologically similar to postmitotic spreading and may therefore use a similar mechanism. We find that beta-thymosin overexpression enhanced all three types of motility, suggesting that the phenotype is likely to be a manifestation of a fundamental change in the actin machinery.

Overexpression of profilin by cDNA-mediated transfection in tissue culture cells also increases F-actin content(38) . However, unlike beta-thymosin overexpression, this is the result of a preferential increase in filaments in the dynamic cell cortex accompanied by disassembly of stress fibers. We do not observe a redistribution of actin filaments between these two compartments in the beta-thymosin overexpressing cells, implicating a different mechanism for raising F-actin concentration.

The beta-thymosin overexpression phenotype is also superficially similar to that of CapG (22) and gelsolin (39) overexpression. These proteins are filament barbed end capping proteins that are regulated by Ca and polyphosphoinositides(40) . In addition, gelsolin also severs actin filaments and binds monomers(41) . When they are overexpressed using the same vector backbone and in the same parent NIH3T3 cell line as employed in the present study, the cells are more active in chemotaxis and wound healing. However, there is no increase in actin filament content and cell spreading. Instead, increased motility is associated with enhanced polyphosphoinositide signaling. Parallel studies with TK cells did not show an increase in polyphosphoinositide metabolism, (^2)again suggesting that although the motile phenotypes are superficially similar, different mechanisms are involved in increasing cell motility. In the case of beta-thymosin overexpression, an increase in F-actin content can best explain the phenotypic changes.

How Can Overexpression of Tbeta10 Increase the Amount of F-Actin in Cells?

We find that raising Tbeta10 concentration 3-fold increased the F-actin content by 30% without changing the amount of actin and the other major actin monomer-binding proteins assayed. This rules out the obvious explanation of compensatory adjustments in the expression of other proteins to overcome the effect of excessive monomer sequestration by Tbeta10. Previous studies have also shown that this mechanism is not generally invoked(22, 38, 39, 42) .

Because the amount of unpolymerized actin (A(u)) is also dictated by the K(d) of the binding protein-actin complex and the C(c), these variables will be considered. The K(d) of the regulatory protein for actin can be altered by the nucleotide bound state of the actin monomer as well as the activation state of the binding protein. Among the proteins examined, beta-thymosin is particularly sensitive to the nucleotide content of actin(4) , but beta-thymosin itself is not known to be regulated directly by other effectors. Its K(d) for ATP-actin is 50-fold less than ADP-actin, so a shift from ATP-actin to ADP-actin in TK cells will render Tbeta10 inactive. However, there is no evidence for a large pool of actin clamped in the ADP-bound form in cells(43) . Furthermore, ADP-actin will increase the C(c) and cannot explain the increase in F-actin in TK cells. On the other hand, inactivation of other monomer-binding proteins by increasing their K(d) for actin is possible, because each of the proteins studied (except for beta-thymosin) can be regulated by physiologically relevant signals or post-translational modifications. These include pH (44, 45) and phosphorylation for cofilin and ADF(26) , Ca and phospholipids for gelsolin(41, 46) , and phospholipids for profilin(20) . However, because each class of proteins is only present at approximately equimolar ratio to the endogenous beta-thymosin and a portion of it is probably already in the inactive state (e.g. 38% of the ADF in NIH3T3 are phosphorylated and therefore inactive(26) ), more than one class of actin monomer-binding proteins will have to be inactivated simultaneously. This possibility is beyond the scope of the present paper and cannot be addressed definitively. A major problem is that it is difficult to directly ascertain the intracellular activation states of these proteins because each is regulated by multiple signals and can bind both G- and F-actin. For example, although phosphorylation of ADF and cofilin can be assessed by two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (26) , the activity of the unphosphorylated proteins is not known, because they are further regulated by pH and can bind actin filaments as well.

The possibility that beta-thymosin overexpression reduces the C(c) is supported by our recent in vitro data with Tbeta4(47) . We find that although Tbeta4 behaves like a simple actin sequestering protein at low concentration (<20 µM), it fails to depolymerize actin as efficiently as expected at higher concentrations. Sedimentation and chemical cross-linking show that Tbeta4 binds actin filaments with low affinity and substoichiometric binding induces a dose-dependent increase in C(c). Electron microscopy shows that the filaments are twisted around each other into bundles. This activity of beta-thymosin was not noticed previously because relatively low concentrations of beta-thymosin were used.

Lowering the C(c) mitigates the impact of Tbeta10 overexpression and reduces the effectiveness of the other monomer-binding proteins as well. Assuming from the in vitro data (47) that 26 µM Tbeta10 decreases the C(c) from 0.5 to 0.2 µM, total sequestered actin will drop from 23.2 to 14.3 µM (Table 2). The unpolymerized actin pool in TK9 will be 9.9% smaller than Ctrl, in spite of a 3-fold increase in Tbeta10. Thus, our in vitro observation that raising intracellular beta-thymosin decreases C(c) can, in theory, account for our in vivo results quantitatively. Likewise, Tbeta4 overexpression in another NIH3T3 cell line also does not increase the actin monomer pool(35, 36) . However, unlike our results, the actin monomer pool is not decreased, possibly because the cell line used has a different monomer binding profile compared with our cells. Nonetheless, the important conclusion is that an increase in beta-thymosin does not necessarily result in a proportionate increase in actin monomer content in a complex environment containing different types of actin monomer-binding proteins.

The actin stress fibers in TK cells appeared thicker, suggesting that they may be bundled. The finding that even TK cells in suspension had more F-actin than Ctrl is consistent with the possibility that the C(c) is decreased. Cells in suspension do not have extrinsic cues generated by substrate attachment, favoring a mechanism that alters an intrinsic property of the actin machinery itself. Although our preliminary immunofluorescence studies did not show colocalization of Tbeta10 with phalloidin-stained actin filaments, (^3)low affinity binding of thymosin to actin filaments is a viable mechanism because beta-thymosin binds F-actin substoichiometrically and therefore may not be present in sufficient quantity to be detected.

The Physiological Implications of Our Findings

Our results show that a small increase in beta-thymosin produces a distinct motile phenotype in NIH3T3 cells that have moderate levels of endogenous beta-thymosin. The concentrations of beta-thymosin attained in these cells after cDNA-mediated overexpression are comparable with and in some cases considerably lower than what is observed in a number of cell types. Furthermore, many cells are able to regulate beta-thymosin expression, which fluctuates according to their developmental and/or activation state (reviewed in (35) ). It was assumed that an increase in beta-thymosin level results in an expansion of the monomer pool to meet the demands for altered polymerization dynamics. Our current result would suggest that beta-thymosin can self-regulate its ability to sequester G-actin, and its biphasic action must be considered in models for the regulation of the actin cycle. Further experiments will be required to determine whether additional mechanisms such as compenstory inactivation of other actin monomer sequestering proteins may also be involved.


FOOTNOTES

*
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants GM51112 and NS31430. The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore by hereby marked ``advertisement'' in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

§
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Physiology, U.T. Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75235-9040. Tel.: 214-648-7967; Fax: 214-648-8685; hyin{at}mednet.swmed.edu.

(^1)
The abbreviations used are: ADF, actin depolymerizing factor; Tbeta10, thymosin beta10; Tbeta4, thymosin beta4; DMEM, Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium; FCS, fetal calf serum; Ctrl, control; HPLC, high pressure liquid chromatography; Pipes, 1,4-piperazinediethanesulfonic acid.

(^2)
H. Q. Sun and H. L. Yin, unpublished results.

(^3)
K. Kwiatkowska and H. L. Yin, unpublished results.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Daniel Safer (University of Pennsylvania) for performing the analytical HPLC measurements.


REFERENCES

  1. Fechheimer, M., and Zigmond, S. H. (1993) J. Cell Biol. 123, 1-5
  2. Sun, H.-Q., Kwiatkowska, K., and Yin, H. L. (1995) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 7, 102-110 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Stossel, T. P. (1993) Science 260, 1086-1094 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Carlier, M.-F., Jean, C., Rieger, K. J., and Lenfant, M. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 5034-5038 [Abstract]
  5. Schafer, D. A., and Cooper, J. A. (1995) Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 11, 497-518 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Hartwig, J. H., Bokoch, G. M., Carpenter, C. L., Janmey, P. A., Taylor, L. A., Toker, A., and Stossel, T. P. (1995) Cell 82, 643-653 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Pantaloni, D., and Carlier, M.-F. (1993) Cell 75, 1007-1014 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Goldschmidt-Clermont, P. J., Furman, M. I., Wachsstock, D., Safer, D., Nachmias, V. T., and Pollard, T. D. (1992) Mol. Biol. Cell 3, 1015-1024 [Abstract]
  9. Carlier, M.-F., and Pantaloni, D. (1994) Semin. Cell Biol. 5, 183-191 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Fisher, G. W., Conrad, P. A., DeBiasio, R. L., and Taylor, D. L. (1988) Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 11, 235-247 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Heath, J. P., and Holifield, B. F. (1991) Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 18, 245-257 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Theriot, J. A., and Mitchison, T. J. (1991) Nature 352, 126-131 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Zigmond, S. H. (1993) Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 25, 309-316 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Yu, F.-X., Lin, S.-C., Morrison-Bogorad, M., Atkinson, M. A. L., and Yin, H. L. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268, 502-509 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Nachmias, V. T., Cassimeris, L., Golla, R., and Safer, D. (1993) Eur. J. Cell Biol. 61, 314-320 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Cassimeris, L., Safer, D., Nachmias, V. T., and Zigmond, S. H. (1992) J. Cell Biol. 119, 1261-1270 [Abstract]
  17. Yu, F., Lin, S., Morrison-Bogorad, M., and Yin, H. L. (1994) Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 27, 13-25 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Sanders, M. C., Goldstein, A. L., and Wang, Y.-L. (1992) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 89, 4678-4682 [Abstract]
  19. Sanger, J. M., Golla, R., Safer, D., Choi, J. K., Yu, K., Sanger, J. W., and Nachmias, V. T. (1995) Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 31, 307-322 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Lassing, I., and Lindberg, U. (1985) Nature 314, 472-474 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Gunning, P., Leavitt, J., Muscat, G., Ng, S. Y., and Kedes, L. (1987) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 84, 4831-4835 [Abstract]
  22. Sun, H.-Q., Kwiatkowska, K., Wooten, D. C., and Yin, H. L. (1995) J. Cell Biol. 129, 147-156 [Abstract]
  23. Lin, S. C., and Morrison-Bogorad, M. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 23347-23353 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Muallem, S., Kwiatkowska, K., Xu, X., and Yin, H. L. (1995) J. Cell Biol. 128, 589-598 [Abstract]
  25. Onoda, K., Yu, F.-X., and Yin, H. L. (1993) Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 26, 227-238 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Morgan, T. E., Lockerbie, R. O., Minamide, L. S., Browning, M. D., and Bamburg, J. R. (1993) J. Cell Biol. 122, 623-633 [Abstract]
  27. Abe, H., and Obinata, T. (1989) J. Biochem. (Tokyo) 106, 172-180
  28. Towbin, H., Staehlin, T., and Gordon, J. (1979) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 76, 4350-4355 [Abstract]
  29. Chomczynski, P., and Sacchi, N. (1987) Anal. Biochem. 162, 156-159
  30. Li, X., Zimmerman, A., Copeland, N. G., Gilbert, D. J., Jenkins, N. A., and Yin, H. L. (1996) Genomics , in press
  31. Howard, T. H., and Oresajo, C. O. (1985) J. Cell Biol. 101, 1078-1085 [Abstract]
  32. Weber, A., Nachmias, V. T., Pennise, C. R., Pring, M., and Safer, D. (1992) Biochemistry 31, 6179-6185 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Marchand, J.-B., Moreau, P., Paoletti, A., Cossart, P., Carlier, M.-F., and Pantaloni, D. (1995) J. Cell Biol. 130, 331-343 [Abstract]
  34. Cano, M. L., Cassimeris, L., Joyce, M., and Zigmond, S. H. (1992) Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 21, 147-158 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Safer, D., and Nachmias, V. T. (1994) Bioessays 16, 473-479 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Golla, R., Safer, D., Sanger, J. M., Sanger, J. W., Choi, J., Yu, K., Holtzer, H., Holtzer, S., Philp, N., and Nachmias, V. T. (1994) Mol. Biol. Cell 4, 383 (abstr.)
  37. Cramer, L. P., and Mitchison, T. J. (1995) J. Cell Biol. 131, 179-189 [Abstract]
  38. Finkel, T., Theriot, J. A., Dise, K. R., Tomaselli, G. F., and Goldschmidt-Clermont, P. J. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91, 1510-1514 [Abstract]
  39. Cunningham, C. C., Stossel, T. P., and Kwiatkowski, D. J. (1991) Science 251, 1233-1236 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Yu, F.-X., Johnston, P. A., Sudhof, T. C., and Yin, H. L. (1990) Science 250, 1413-1415 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Yin, H. L., and Stossel, T. P. (1980) J. Biol. Chem. 255, 9490-9493 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Babcock, G., and Rubenstein, P. A. (1993) Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 24, 179-188 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. Rosenblatt, J., Peluso, P., and Mitchison, T. J. (1995) Mol. Biol. Cell 6, 227-236 [Abstract]
  44. Hayden, S. M., Miller, P. S., Brauweiler, A., and Bamburg, J. R. (1993) Biochemistry 32, 9994-10004 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. Hawkins, M., Pope, B., Maciver, S. K., and Weeds, A. G. (1993) Biochemistry 32, 9985-9993 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  46. Janmey, P. A., and Stossel, T. P. (1987) Nature 325, 362-364 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Carlier, M.-F., Didry, D., Erk, I., Lepault, J., Van Troys, M. L., Vanderkekove, J., Perelroizen, I., Yin, H., Doi, Y., and Pantaloni, D. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 9231-9239 [Abstract/Free Full Text]

©1996 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.