Differential Regulation of Actin Depolymerizing Factor and Cofilin in Response to Alterations in the Actin Monomer Pool*

(Received for publication, December 5, 1996, and in revised form, January 23, 1997)

Laurie S. Minamide Dagger , William B. Painter Dagger , Galina Schevzov §, Peter Gunning § and James R. Bamburg Dagger par

From the Dagger  Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and the Molecular, Cellular and Integrative Neuroscience Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 and § The Children's Medical Research Institute, 214 Hawkesbury Road, Westmead, New South Wales 2145, Australia

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
FOOTNOTES
REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Myoblasts, transfected with a human gene encoding a beta -actin point mutation, down-regulate expression of actin depolymerizing factor (ADF) and its mRNA. Regulation is posttranscriptional. Expression of cofilin, a structurally similar protein, and profilin, CapG, and tropomodulin is not altered with increasing mutant beta -actin expression. Myoblasts expressing either human gamma -actin or the mutant beta -actin down-regulate the endogenous mouse actin genes to keep a constant level of actin mRNA, whereas the gamma -actin transfectants do not down-regulate ADF. Thus, ADF expression is regulated differently from actin expression.

The mutant beta -actin binds to ADF with about the same affinity as normal actin; however, it does not assemble into normal actin filaments. The decrease in ADF expression correlates with an increase in the unassembled actin pool. When the actin monomer pool in untransfected myoblasts is increased 70% by treatment with latrunculin A, synthesis of ADF and actin are down-regulated compared with cofilin and 19 other proteins selected at random. Increasing the actin monomer pool also results in nearly complete phosphorylation of both ADF and cofilin. Thus, ADF and cofilin are coordinately regulated by posttranslational modification, but their expression is differentially regulated. Furthermore, expression of ADF is responsive to the utilization of actin by the cell.


INTRODUCTION

Regulation of the synthesis and assembly of cytoskeletal components is critical to cell survival. Although it has been recognized for many years that cellular demand for cytoskeletal components can drive the synthesis of monomer (1, 2), the autoregulatory mechanisms have been determined in detail only for beta -tubulin (3-5).

Actin is also subject to feedback regulation although the mechanism is not established (2). Overexpression of human genes encoding gamma -actin or a beta -actin single mutant (beta sm-actin)1 (Gly-244 to Asp) in mouse C2 myoblast cells results in the down-regulation of endogenous mouse beta - and gamma -actin genes, thus maintaining a constant level of actin mRNA and protein (6). In contrast, overexpression of a human gene encoding a highly unstable mutant actin protein fails to elicit down-regulation of the endogenous mouse genes. This suggests that the feedback regulation is directed by the protein product of that introduced gene (6).

Feedback regulation of actin synthesis by an increased monomer pool may involve the control of mRNA stability. Synthesis of actin decreases in cells that have been treated with the actin depolymerizing drugs, latrunculin A (Lat A) and botulinum toxin C2 (7-9). The decline in rates of actin synthesis in Lat A and C2 toxin-treated cells can be largely accounted for by the observed decrease in mRNA stability within the cytoplasm (8, 9). On the other hand, de novo synthesis of actin mRNA increases in cells in which actin assembly has been promoted by incorporation of phalloidin (9), suggesting that two different autoregulatory control mechanisms, one nuclear and the other cytoplasmic, work to maintain actin homeostasis.

Actin is also capable of reprogramming the expression of microfilament-associated proteins. High level expression of different human actin genes in mouse C2 cells impacts on the expression and organization of different tropomyosin isoforms (10) and on the expression of vinculin and talin (11). Vinculin expression is also decreased by drugs that depolymerize actin, and vinculin down-regulation requires the presence of a nucleus (8). In addition, changes in actin and vinculin expression in response to drug treatment are independent of changes in cell shape (8). High level expression of tropomyosin Tm1 (12), vinculin (13, 14), alpha -actinin (15), and gelsolin (16), which all alter cell morphology, have no impact on the expression of other microfilament proteins. This suggests that the ability of actin to reprogram expression of microfilament proteins may be unique to actin.

The assembly of the actin cytoskeleton depends upon the production and activities of a large number of actin binding proteins (reviewed in Refs. 17-19). Among the most important of these proteins are those in the profilin, thymosin, and actin depolymerizing factor (ADF)/cofilin families that have been implicated in regulating actin assembly in a number of different systems (reviewed in Refs. 20 and 21). How responsive the cellular levels of these proteins are to actin utilization is unknown. The mutant human beta sm-actin is known to form aberrant actin filaments (22), and thus, clones of cells expressing different amounts of this protein provide a good model system to determine which of the actin assembly regulatory proteins are responsive to its nonfilamentous accumulation. Clones of cells expressing equivalent amounts of the assembly competent, normal human beta - and gamma -actins provide useful controls.

In various C2 cell clones, expressing human beta sm-actin and normal human beta - and gamma -actins, we examined the levels of three actin monomer binding proteins ADF, cofilin, and profilin. In addition, we looked at the expression of CapG (23) and tropomodulin (24), two proteins present in myoblasts that can also alter actin assembly dynamics and filament lengths. The expression of only one of these proteins, ADF, is inversely proportional to the levels of the assembly mutant, beta sm-actin. Further analysis of the same C2 cell clones showed an increase in G-actin concomitant with a decrease in ADF expression, suggesting that ADF may be a critical assembly regulatory protein sensitive to the utilization of actin by the cell. To explore this hypothesis further, untransfected C2 cells were treated with Lat A to depolymerize F-actin and increase the unassembled actin pool. As previously shown in Swiss 3T3 and HeLa cells (8), the Lat A treatment induced a down-regulation in actin synthesis. Results presented below demonstrate that the synthesis of ADF, but not cofilin, decreases when the pool of unassembled actin increases. In addition, C2 cells respond to Lat A by nearly complete phosphorylation (inactivation) of both ADF and cofilin. Thus, although the posttranslational regulation of ADF and cofilin is coordinated, their synthesis is regulated independently. We propose that perturbations in the actin monomer pool regulate the expression of ADF, but not cofilin, in C2 cells.


MATERIALS AND METHODS

Purification and Quantification of Proteins

The following proteins were generous gifts of the individuals listed: calf spleen profilin and CapG from Dr. Helen Yin, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School; tropomodulin from Dr. Mark Sussman, University of Southern California. ADF was isolated from chick embryo brain (25). Recombinant chick ADF (26) and recombinant cofilin (27) were prepared in the laboratory as described previously. Skeletal muscle actin was purified from rabbit muscle acetone powder (28), and brain actin was purified from 18-day embryonic chick brain (29). Protein concentrations were determined by the filter paper dye-binding method, using ovalbumin as a standard (30).

Cell Culture

The C2C12 murine myoblast cell line was maintained as a monolayer in 75-cm2 tissue culture flasks (Corning Laboratories, Corning, NY) in growth medium containing Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (low glucose), 20% fetal bovine serum, and 0.5% chick embryo extract (all from Life Technologies, Inc.). For experiments, cells were cultured in 6- or 10-cm tissue culture dishes at less than 30% confluence. All actin transfected cell clones were previously described (31).

Nuclear Run-on Transcription

C2 cells (2-5 × 107) were washed with 4 °C phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and scraped off plates into 4 ml of 50 mM Tris, pH 8.0, 100 mM NaCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 0.5% (v/v) Nonidet P-40 at 4 °C, and nuclei were prepared (32). The nuclei were resuspended in 100 µl of 50 mM Tris, pH 8.3, 40% glycerol, 5 mM MgCl2, 0.1 mM EDTA and assayed immediately. To each nuclei sample was added 100 µl of 10 mM Tris, pH 8, 5 mM MgCl2, 0.3 M KCl, 0.5 mM DTT, 10 mM GTP, 10 mM ATP, and 10 mM CTP and 200 µCi of [32P]UTP (3000 Ci/mmol), and the mixture was incubated at 26 °C for 10 min (33). Following DNase I and proteinase K digestions, the RNA was extracted and precipitated (34). The RNA was dissolved in 500 µl of rapid-hyb buffer (Amersham Corp.) and hybridized to slot blots containing 10 µg of cut, denatured plasmids containing probe sequences for actin (pTRI-beta -actin-mouse) and human 18 S ribosomal RNA (pT7 RNA 18 S) (Ambion, Inc., Austin, TX) or human ADF (courtesy of Alan Weeds, Cambridge, UK). The blots were prehybridized overnight at 65 °C, and 3.5 ml of fresh rapid-hyb buffer was added prior to the addition of the labeled RNA. Blots were hybridized for 48 h and then washed 2 × for 60 min with 50 ml of 2 × SSC (0.3 M NaCl, 0.03 M sodium citrate, pH 7.0) at 65 °C, 1 × for 60 min in 8 ml of 2 × SSC with 8 µl of 10 mg/ml RNase A at 37 °C, and 1 × for 30 min at 65 °C in 2 × SSC and 0.1% SDS. Radioactivity was detected and quantified with a PhosphorImager (Molecular Dynamics, Sunnyvale, CA). The solution of labeled RNA from the first hybridization was rehybridized to a duplicate blot to confirm complete hybridization of specific RNA in the first incubation.

Gel Electrophoresis and Immunoblotting

Sample Preparation

Cultured C2 cells were washed rapidly 4 × in 4 °C PBS, lysed into SDS extraction buffer (10 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 2% SDS, 10 mM NaF, 5 mM dithiothreitol (DTT), 2 mM EGTA) by scraping, and the extracts were heated in boiling water for 3 min. After cooling, the samples were sonicated briefly and the proteins precipitated (35). The proteins were dissolved in 2 × sample preparation buffer (1 × buffer contains 0.125 M Tris, pH 6.8, 0.5% SDS, 5% glycerol, 5% 2-mercaptoethanol, 0.005% bromphenol blue) for SDS-PAGE.

SDS-PAGE and Immunoblotting

SDS-PAGE was performed by the method of Laemmli (36) on 15% total acrylamide (2.7% cross-linker) isocratic mini-slab gels. Proteins were transferred electrophoretically to polyvinylidene difluoride (Immobilon P, Millipore Corp., Bedford, MA) for 1 h at 0.3 A in the buffer of Towbin et al. (37), using a Genie Electroblotter (Idea Scientific, Minneapolis, MN), blocked, washed, and immunostained as described previously (25). Alkaline phosphatase-conjugated secondary antibody (Sigma) was diluted in the wash buffer. Blots were developed with Lumiphos (Boehringer Mannheim) after a quick rinse in 100 mM Tris, pH 9.5, 100 mM NaCl, 50 mM MgCl2, or with CDP-star (Tropix Inc., Bedford, MA) after a quick rinse in 50 mM Tris, pH 9.5, 100 mM NaCl, 1 mM MgCl2 to get exposures within the linear range of the Hyperfilm ECL (Amersham Corp.). Following chemiluminescent detection, blots were immunostained with NBT/BCIP (Life Technologies, Inc.) according to manufacturer's directions. Exposures of the chemiluminescence images and the stained blots were analyzed with a Microscan 2000 image analysis system (Technology Resources Inc., Knoxville, TN). Internal standards of proteins were included on every immunoblot.

Antibodies

Mouse monoclonal antibody (C4) to actin was purchased from ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Costa Mesa, CA). gamma -Actin-specific rabbit antiserum was a gift from Dr. J. Chloe Bulinski, Columbia University, NY. Monoclonal antibody to the beta -actin isoform was from Sigma. Rabbit polyclonal antibody to ADF was prepared by us (38). Mouse monoclonal antibody (MAb22) to cofilin was a gift from Drs. Hiroshi Abe and Takashi Obinata, Chiba University, Japan (39). Polyclonal rabbit antibodies to human profilin and CapG were a gift from Dr. Helen Yin, University of Texas Southwestern Graduate School, Dallas, TX. Affinity purified rabbit IgG to tropomodulin was a gift from Dr. Mark Sussman, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.

Immunoprecipitation

Supernatants from the homogenates of C2 myocyte cultures were prepared by scraping the washed cells from a 6-cm culture dish in 300 µl of 10 mM HEPES, pH 7.4, 0.15 M NaCl, 1 mM DTT, and 1% Triton X-100 (IP buffer), sonicating the cell suspension for 3 s, and centrifuging at 10,000 × g for 5 min at 4 °C. The supernatant was then preincubated on a rotator with 240 µl of a 1:1 suspension of protein A-agarose in IP buffer at 4 °C for 5 min. The sample was centrifuged 10 s at 10,000 × g and the supernatant divided into two tubes. Anti-ADF IgG (2 mg/ml; 120 µl) or preimmune serum was added to each tube, and the tubes were rotated at 4 °C overnight. Protein A-agarose (60 µl of a 1:1 suspension) in IP buffer was added to each tube (rotated at 4 °C) for 1 h. The resin was centrifuged, washed once with 300 µl of IP buffer, and the bound antibody complexes extracted with 30 µl of 1% SDS in a boiling water bath. After centrifugation, the supernatant was mixed with an equal volume of 4 × sample preparation buffer for SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting.

Affinity Chromatography

The actin isoforms binding to ADF were also examined by using ADF-Affi-Gel resin. All steps were carried out at 4 °C and under nitrogen. Recombinant ADF (5.9 mg) was dialyzed against degassed 0.1 M MOPS, pH 7.5, for 4 h and then added to 1 ml of Affi-Gel 10 resin (Bio-Rad) hydrated in degassed MOPS buffer. After mixing for 2 h, 0.1 ml of 1 M ethanolamine, pH 8, was added, and the sample was mixed for 1 h. DTT (1 M; 3 µl) was then added (nitrogen atmosphere was not needed after this step), and the resin was placed in a column and washed with 25 ml of MOPS buffer containing 1 mM DTT. Supernatants of extracts from cultured C2 cells or C2 transfectants were prepared as described under immunoprecipitation except that the lysis buffer was 0.1 M Tris, pH 8.0, and 1 mM DTT (600 µl/6-cm dish). Supernatant (100 µl) was added to 60 µl of a 1:1 suspension of the ADF resin in 0.1 M MOPS, pH 7.5, 1 mM DTT, or to the same volume of Sepharose 4B resin as a control. The samples were incubated on a rotator for 5 min at 4 °C. After microcentrifuging for 10 s, the resin was washed once with 300 µl of 1 M Tris, pH 8.0, 1 mM DTT. The bound proteins were extracted with 40 µl of 1% SDS in a boiling water bath. Samples were diluted with an equal volume of 4 × sample preparation buffer, and actin isoforms were identified by SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting.

RNA Blotting and Analysis

RNA was isolated from duplicate sets of four 10-cm plates of C2 cells and each of the transfected clones using the guanidinium thiocyanate method (34). RNA from the duplicate samples was separated by agarose-formaldehyde electrophoresis, transferred to Hybond-N+ membrane (Amersham Corp.), and hybridized with a 260-base pair fragment of the human ADF cDNA (339-599 HindIII fragment; Ref. 40) which had been labeled with 32P by the random primer method (41) or with an 18 S ribosomal RNA probe (used in excess), end-labeled with T4 polynucleotide kinase, for normalization of loading the gel (6). Hybridization of the ADF probe was carried out in 4 × SSC, 5 × Denhardt's solution (42), 50 mM NaH2PO4, and 10% dextran sulfate at 65 °C overnight and for the 18 S probe in the same solution at 55 °C overnight. Filters were washed 4 × for 30 min at 50 °C in 0.5 × SSC, 0.1% SDS for the ADF probe, and 2 × for 20 min at room temperature and 3 × for 20 min at 55 °C in 4 × SSC, 0.1% SDS for the 18 S rRNA probe. Autoradiography was performed at -70 °C with either Kodak XAR-5 film or Amersham Hyperfilm-MP. RNA bands on the autoradiogram (subsaturating levels) were quantified using the Microscan 2000 image analysis system. The integrated density of each ADF mRNA band was normalized to the amount of 18 S RNA in that sample with the value from wild type C2 cells taken as 100%.

Quantification of G-actin in Cultured Cells

Cultured cells were washed free of medium with four washes of 4 °C PBS and lysed in 10 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 2 mM MgCl2, 0.5 mM DTT, 2 mM EGTA, 1% Triton X-100, and 7.5% glycerol. Material was scraped to the edge of the plate and transferred with a wide bore pipette to a microcentrifuge tube for G-actin quantification or to an airfuge tube for preparation of supernatant and cytoskeletal fractions. The amount of G-actin in each lysate was determined by the DNase I inhibition assay (43, 44) using DNase I calibrated with purified skeletal muscle G-actin. Supernatant and cytoskeletal (pellet) fractions were prepared from the cell extracts by centrifugation of the lysates at 170,000 × gmax for 20 min. Actin in each fraction was determined by immunoblot analysis.

Preparation of Triton-soluble and Cytoskeletal Fractions

Lat A (a generous gift from Ilan Spector, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY) was added to C2 cell cultures to 5 µM for 0, 6, 12, and 18 h at 37 °C. The cells were washed four times with PBS (2 ml) at room temperature and extracted at room temperature with 50 mM MES, pH 6.5, 1 mM EGTA, 50 mM KCl, 1 mM MgCl2, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 10 mM NaF, 0.5% Triton X-100, and 0.5% protease inhibition mixture (45) (0.45 ml/6-cm dish). The Triton-soluble fraction was transferred to a microcentrifuge tube containing 50 µl of 20% SDS and heated to boiling for 5 min. The cytoskeletal fraction was solubilized in SDS extraction buffer, transferred to a microcentrifuge tube, and heated in boiling water for 5 min. After cooling to room temperature, the cytoskeletal fraction was briefly sonicated to reduce the viscosity due to DNA. The proteins in both fractions were precipitated (35) and redissolved in 50 µl of 3 × sample preparation buffer. For Western blotting, 1 µg of protein/fraction and 10-50 ng of actin standards were loaded.

Measurement of Rates of Protein Synthesis

C2 cells on 6-cm dishes were treated with Lat A (5 µM) for 0, 6, 12, and 18 h at 37 °C. Thirty minutes prior to the end of the Lat A treatment, the cells were washed twice with prewarmed methionine-, cysteine-, and serum-free Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (labeling medium). The cells were then incubated with 200 µCi/ml [35S]methionine/cysteine (Promix; Amersham Corp.) in labeling medium containing Lat A (except for control dishes) for 30 min at 37 °C. The labeling solution was aspirated and the cells washed twice with 2 ml of PBS at room temperature. The cells were lysed in 150 µl/dish SDS extraction buffer and the extracts immediately heated to boiling for 3 min. After cooling, the samples were sonicated briefly, the proteins precipitated (35), and then dissolved in 9.5 M urea, 5% 2-mercaptoethanol, and 2% Nonidet P-40 or Igepal (Sigma).

Proteins were separated by two-dimensional PAGE using nonequilibrium pH gradient electrophoresis in the first dimension (46) and SDS-PAGE in the second dimension. Equal amounts of protein were loaded. ADF, cofilin, and actin were identified by Western blot analysis. Amounts of radioactivity in each spot were quantified using a PhosphorImager and ImageQuant or Photometrics Imaging software. Incorporation of radiolabeled amino acids into ADF, cofilin, and actin were compared with those of 19 randomly selected proteins at each time point.


RESULTS

A Mutant Form of beta -Actin Impacts Specifically on ADF

Wild-type C2 cells and four different clones of C2 cells transfected with the human beta sm-actin gene were shown to express different levels of beta sm-actin (Fig. 1A). The single mutation in actin alters its mobility on SDS-PAGE so that it can be identified on one-dimensional gels (2). These same clones were analyzed for ADF protein by Western blotting (Fig. 1A). Two forms of ADF can be visualized on these one-dimensional blots, and both decrease with increasing expression of the transfected gene. The upper species is the phosphorylated form of ADF (45).


Fig. 1. C2C12 myoblast clones expressing different levels of the single mutant beta sm-actin show a down-regulation of ADF expression (both protein and mRNA) inversely proportional to the levels of expression of the beta sm gene. Extracts of the C2 cell line and clones expressing various concentrations of beta sm-actin were subjected to Western blot analysis for total actin and ADF (A) or Northern blot analysis for ADF mRNA and 18 S rRNA (B). The beta sm-actin has a slower mobility on SDS-PAGE than the endogenous mouse actins (A, upper gel). The ADF blot shows that these cells have both the phosphorylated form (pADF) and unphosphorylated form of the protein (A, lower gel). Equal amounts of protein (20 µg) were loaded, and an ADF standard curve was included on every Western blot. ADF standard shown contains 20 ng of recombinant ADF which has four additional amino acids and runs slightly higher on the gel than wild-type dephosphorylated ADF. B, Northern blots of total RNA (9 µg) from C2 cells and the same clones examined above were analyzed using a probe from the actin binding region of the human ADF cDNA and a probe for 18 S ribosomal RNA to normalize loading. C, quantitative analysis of the levels of ADF (black-triangle) and ADF mRNA (square ) in clones of C2 cells expressing different amounts of the beta sm-actin mutant, plotted against the beta sm-actin protein. Lines are the linear regression analysis of single sets of data.
[View Larger Version of this Image (31K GIF file)]


Northern blots of total RNA, extracted from these same beta sm-actin expressing cell lines, show a decline in ADF mRNA levels (Fig. 1B). Quantitative analysis of both Northern and Western blots shows that there is a strong inverse relationship between both the relative amounts of ADF mRNA and ADF protein and the amount of beta sm-actin expressed in each clonal line (Fig. 1C).

To determine if this type of regulatory response is specific to ADF or if other actin-binding proteins behave in an identical manner, we examined these cell lines transfected with the human beta sm-actin gene for expression of cofilin, profilin, CapG, and tropomodulin by Western blotting. Cofilin expression remained constant with increasing beta sm-actin expression (Fig. 2) demonstrating that the feedback regulatory signals differentially impact on the expression of these two structurally and functionally similar actin assembly regulatory proteins. Expression of profilin, CapG, and tropomodulin also remained constant with increasing beta sm-actin expression (Fig. 2). The mutant beta sm-actin is therefore highly specific in its effect on actin binding proteins.


Fig. 2. Quantitative analysis of the levels of cofilin, profilin, CapG, and tropomodulin, compared with ADF, in clones of C2 cells expressing different amounts of the beta sm-actin mutant (shown in Fig. 1). Error bars show standard deviations from a minimum of three separate experiments. Other than ADF, none of these proteins showed any significant change with beta sm-actin expression.
[View Larger Version of this Image (71K GIF file)]


Possible Mechanisms for the Observed Changes in ADF Expression

To determine if there is a relationship between the mechanisms responsible for changes in ADF expression that occur in the beta sm-actin expressing clones and those that alter endogenous actin gene expression and/or cell morphology, we examined clonal cell lines of C2 cells transfected with the normal human gamma -actin gene. Previous studies have revealed a remarkable similarity between the impact of beta sm-actin and gamma -actin gene transfections in the C2 cells. Both genes lead to down-regulation of the endogenous beta - and gamma -actin genes and a similar decrease in cell surface area (6, 31). In addition, both genes produce down-regulation of the tropomyosin isoforms Tm2,3 (10), and the focal adhesion proteins vinculin and talin (11). No significant difference in the level of ADF expression (as a percentage of total protein) was found in either the high or low expressing clones resulting from transfection of the human gamma -actin gene (Fig. 3). This demonstrates that neither morphology nor endogenous actin gene expression was directly coupled to the ADF down-regulatory response. The down-regulation of ADF was not due to intrinsic activity of an exogenous beta -actin promoter. Clones expressing mRNA encoding a normal human beta -actin at levels comparable with those of the highest beta sm clone (6) did not impact on ADF expression (Fig. 3).


Fig. 3. C2C12 myoblast clones expressing various levels of either human beta -actin or gamma -actin have reduced expression of endogenous mouse actin but do not differ from wild-type C2 cells in their expression of mouse actin depolymerizing factor (ADF). Results are from Western blot analysis of ADF in extracts from a minimum of four cultures of C2 cells (C2) and C2 cells transfected with vector alone (LK56) or with human genes for wild type beta -actin, gamma -actin, or beta sm-actin. These clones were previously characterized for levels of mouse and human actin gene expression (6). The levels of mouse actin gene expression (mRNA) as a percent of the total actin expression are C2 (100%), LK56 (100%), 411 (83%), 425 (97%), 33B1 (31%), 33A5 (75%), 522 (35%), and 547 (97%). The only clone showing a significant difference in ADF expression from controls is 522, the highest expressing clone of the beta sm-actin.
[View Larger Version of this Image (67K GIF file)]


To examine the level at which ADF expression was down-regulated, we compared the transcriptional activity of ADF, actin, and 18 S RNA genes in wild type C2 cells with that in the highest beta sm-actin-expressing clone (clone 522) by nuclear run-on assays (Fig. 4). Normalizing the transcriptional activity to 18 S RNA, the ratio of expression (522 cells/wild type) for ADF is 1.6, and for actin it is 0.56. Neither of these ratios is significantly different from 1, but the ADF ratio is significantly different from 0.2, the value expected if ADF expression is totally regulated at the level of transcription, since the ADF mRNA level in the 522 cells is about 20% of that in wild type C2 cells. These results suggest that ADF down-regulation is controlled posttranscriptionally.


Fig. 4. ADF expression is down-regulated at a posttranscriptional level in the C2 clone, 522. Radiographic images of one representative nuclear run-on assay using labeled extracts from wild type C2 cells and the highest beta sm-actin-expressing clone, 522. The assay was repeated on identical slot blots with five samples of RNA from different nuclei preparations. The numbers next to the blots are the averages of the dpm in each band ± S.D. after normalizing each blot to 18 S RNA for the five replicate experiments. The ratios of the values between the 522 and wild type cells, which represent the relative transcriptional rates of each transcript, are shown in the last column.
[View Larger Version of this Image (27K GIF file)]


ADF Recognizes and Binds to Mutant beta sm-Actin Protein

It seemed possible that ADF expression could be down-regulated by the decreased levels of normal actin expressed by the cell. Indeed, the level of normal beta -actin closely parallels the level of ADF in these cells. ADF might not recognize the beta sm-actin pool, and thus, the level of ADF could be regulated by the size of the pool of normal actin. To determine if ADF would recognize and bind to the beta sm-actin, we used two approaches. First we lysed the C2 cell line expressing the highest level of beta sm-actin (clone 522) into immunoprecipitation buffer and immunoprecipitated the ADF and associated proteins with a rabbit ADF antiserum. The immunoprecipitates were washed, solubilized in SDS, and the actin isoforms associated with the ADF were identified by immunoblotting using a monoclonal antibody that recognizes all of the actin isoforms (Fig. 5A). For the second approach, we used an ADF affinity resin to bind actin in lysates of the cell line expressing the highest level of beta sm-actin. The bound actin was extracted with SDS, and isoforms were identified by immunoblotting (Fig. 5B). Both methods demonstrate that ADF binds the beta sm-actin in the same ratio to total actin as occurs in the whole cell lysate.


Fig. 5. ADF has the ability to bind to both the unassembled mutant beta sm-actin and normal actin from transfected C2C12 cells. Western blots of both ADF immunoprecipitates (A) and actin bound to ADF resin from lysates of transfected C2 cells (B) showed ratios of beta sm-actin to normal actin similar to those found in the whole cell lysate.
[View Larger Version of this Image (34K GIF file)]


ADF Activity and Expression Are Perturbed by Increasing the Actin Monomer Pool

Since the beta sm-actin mutation does not affect ADF binding, it seemed likely that the levels of ADF might depend upon the utilization of actin by the cell and be regulated by signals dependent upon the monomer or filamentous actin pools. To assess the distribution of actin isoforms between the soluble and cytoskeletal pool, 170,000 × g supernatant and pellet fractions were prepared from extracts of C2 cells and three of the beta sm-actin expressing cell lines used above. The distribution of beta -actin, beta sm-actin, and gamma -actin in the supernatant and pellet fractions were determined from Western blots, using a polyclonal antibody specific for the gamma -actin isoform and a monoclonal antibody specific for the beta -actin and the aberrantly migrating beta sm-actin isoforms (Fig. 1A). The results of this analysis (Table I) show that in cells expressing more of the beta sm-actin isoform, a higher proportion of the total actin exists in the supernatant fraction. Neither of the highest expressing clones transfected with the wild-type human beta -actin or gamma -actin showed any significant difference from C2 cells in the distribution of actin between the soluble and particulate pool (data not shown). By assaying cell extracts for G-actin using the DNase I inhibition assay (Table I), we also confirmed that cell lines expressing a higher amount of the beta sm-actin contained a higher amount of unassembled actin. The increase in G-actin measured by the DNase I assay is not as large as the increase observed in the supernatant actin pool, perhaps indicating that some of the increase in non-sedimentable actin results from aggregates or oligomers that do not inhibit DNase I stoichiometrically. The percentage increase in actin in the soluble pool roughly parallels the decline observed in ADF expression, suggesting that ADF expression may be sensitive to feedback regulation as a result of increased monomer and/or decreased polymer.

Table I.

Distribution of actin isoforms in the unassembled and filamentous actin pools

Actin isoforms from duplicate Western blots of the supernatant (sup) and pellet (pel) fractions were quantified. All blots contained internal standards of brain actin which consists of a mixture of beta -actin to gamma -actin of 1.1/1 (29). The levels of G-actin in cell lysates from triplicate plates were also measured by the DNase I inhibition assay (values shown are ± S.D.).


Clone Fraction  beta -Actin  beta sm-actin  gamma -Actin Percent of actin in supernatant Percent increase in supernatant actin Percent G-actin increase (DNase I assay) Percent decrease in ADF

ng/µg ng/µg ng/µg
C2 sup 21 0 8 33 0 0 0
pel 38 0 20
547 sup 23 1.5 19 42 27 2  ± 8 16
pel 35 4.5 20
572 sup 11 21 10 45 36 38  ± 9 55
pel 18 22 12
522 sup 8 34 8 58 76 56  ± 11 76
pel 9 22 7

To explore this hypothesis further, we examined the effect of the cell-permeable actin depolymerizing agent, Lat A, on the synthesis of ADF. By binding to monomeric actin (47), Lat A increases monomeric actin pools in Swiss 3T3 and HeLa cells, a change which is accompanied by a decrease in actin synthesis (8). C2 cells rounded up within 20 min of Lat A addition to 5 µM. Unassembled actin in Triton X-100-soluble extracts of C2 cells treated with this same concentration of Lat A increased from 34 ± 3% of total actin to 58 ± 4% (constant from 6 to 18 h after Lat A addition), a shift comparable with that observed previously (8). Over the 18-h time course of Lat A treatment, ADF and cofilin did not change significantly as a percent of total protein (not shown). However, even within 6 h of Lat A treatment, nearly all of the ADF and cofilin became phosphorylated (Fig. 6). The phosphorylated forms of ADF and cofilin are inactive in binding actin (45, 48). Thus, the immediate response of C2 cells to an increase in unassembled actin is to inactivate both ADF and cofilin.


Fig. 6. Two-dimensional immunoblots stained for both ADF and cofilin of C2 cell extracts from cells treated with Lat A (5 µM) for 0 (top), 6 (middle), and 12 h (bottom). Percentage of the total ADF + cofilin that is in the active (unphosphorylated) form is shown. Identity of the spots: a, ADF; b, cofilin; c, m-cofilin; d, pADF; e, p-cofilin; f, p-m-cofilin. m-Cofilin is an isoform enriched in muscle (65).
[View Larger Version of this Image (28K GIF file)]


The amounts of radioactivity incorporated into ADF, cofilin, and actin by pulse labeling before and after Lat A treatment were determined by PhosphorImaging and compared with 19 randomly selected protein spots. Exposure of C2 cells to Lat A for greater than 12 h caused a significant decline in overall protein synthesis. As shown in Fig. 7, cofilin synthesis closely follows the average levels of protein synthesis during the first 12 h. However, ADF and actin synthesis decrease much more rapidly following Lat A addition, paralleling the increase in unassembled actin in Lat A-treated cells. These results demonstrate that the expression of ADF, but not cofilin, is sensitive to the utilization of actin by the cell.


Fig. 7. Protein synthesis in Lat A-treated C2 cells. Amount of [35S]Met/Cys incorporated into actin, ADF, and cofilin during a 30-min pulse label is compared by two-dimensional gel blot analysis to the incorporation into 19 other protein spots selected at random at 0, 6, and 12 h after cells were treated with Lat A. A minimum of three cultures were analyzed for each condition. Error bars are standard deviations.
[View Larger Version of this Image (19K GIF file)]



DISCUSSION

The ability of an actin mutant to specifically down-regulate ADF suggests the existence of a unique regulatory pathway linking ADF with an unknown aspect of actin function. The specificity of this pathway is highlighted by the finding that beta sm- and gamma -actin transfections parallel each other in all aspects except ADF regulation (6, 10, 11, 31). We doubt, however, that ADF is responding to the decreased levels of normal actin per se because the binding studies suggest that ADF can equally bind normal and beta sm-actin. Unlike gamma -actin, the mutant beta sm-actin cannot form normal actin filaments but rather assembles into ribbon-like structures (22). ADF regulation may therefore be responding to either the decrease in F-actin available for binding or to the increase in the G-actin pool. The ability of Lat A to induce decreased synthesis of ADF but not cofilin confirms that the G-/F-actin ratio can certainly regulate ADF metabolism.

The difference in regulation of expression of ADF and cofilin is of considerable interest because they are members of the same family of 18.5 kDa, calcium-independent, pH-sensitive F-actin-binding/depolymerizing and G-actin-sequestering proteins (26, 27, 40, 49-52). Both proteins have identical regulatory sites for phosphorylation (48, 53) and have been identified as proteins that undergo rapid dephosphorylation in response to external stimuli which result in changes in cytoskeletal organization and assembly (54-57). The results presented here demonstrate that both proteins respond identically to posttranslational regulation in response to increased monomeric actin pools. This is consistent with a model in which elevated G-actin initially inactivates both ADF and cofilin by phosphorylation. If this G-actin elevation persists, a second level of regulation, decreased synthesis, comes into play only for ADF. In addition, both ADF and cofilin contain identical nuclear localization signals (58-60) that serve to target these proteins to the nucleus (with cytoplasmic actin), especially in times of stress (61, 62). The nuclear translocation of cofilin in T-cells is strictly regulated by co-stimulatory signals that stimulate both clonal growth and expression of the cell's functional repertoire, including the production of interleukin-2 (54). Inhibiting this translocation, albeit indirectly through blocking dephosphorylation of cofilin, leads to enhanced apoptosis (63). Therefore, these proteins would be ideal candidates for providing a nuclear signal for the assembly state of actin in the cytoplasm, a likely first step in the process of maintaining actin homeostasis. The difference in their response to beta sm-actin suggests that if this is one of their functions, then they are monitoring different properties of actin metabolism.

ADF and cofilin are also differentially regulated during myogenesis. ADF is down-regulated in developing muscle in vivo (38, 45) when the muscle-specific alpha -actin isoform is synthesized and G-actin levels decline (64). However, during in vitro myogenesis (45), ADF levels do not decline, but rather the ADF is inactivated by phosphorylation. These results suggest that control of ADF activity is necessary for regulating actin assembly in muscle cells and that extracellular signals, provided by the in vivo environment, are necessary for repression of ADF synthesis. Cofilin levels also decline in developing muscle but to a lesser extent than ADF (39), due in part to the expression of a muscle cofilin isoform (65). Levels of cofilin, but not ADF, are found to increase in denervated muscle (66) and in dystrophic muscle (67), demonstrating that differential up-regulation of these proteins can also occur. Together with the data presented in this paper, this work suggests that ADF and cofilin are independently regulated although they are usually co-expressed. This suggests different functional requirements for these two gene products.

Actin appears to be unique in its ability to regulate the expression of other gene products associated with microfilament function. Both wild type and beta sm-actin gene transfections can change both the protein and mRNA levels of endogenous actins, selective tropomyosins, vinculin, talin, and now ADF (6, 10, 11, 31). In contrast, transfection of gene constructs encoding vinculin, alpha -actinin, Tm-1, and gelsolin, which all impact on cell morphology, do not affect the expression of other microfilament associated products (12, 13, 15, 16). This therefore raises the question of whether actin expression is a master regulator of other microfilament components and can send signals to, but does not respond to, the expression of these other gene products. Recent studies in which the single ADF/cofilin gene product in Dictyostelium discoidium was overexpressed suggest that this is not true (68). A 7-fold increase was achieved in Dictyostelium cofilin expression, but this was accompanied by a 3-fold increase in actin expression, suggesting that for certain actin-binding proteins, especially those that are involved in setting or maintaining the monomeric actin pool, compensatory changes in actin synthesis are triggered. This suggests that it is direct alteration in actin metabolism that may regulate actin and other actin-binding proteins.

What then is the biological function of ADF? These data certainly do not support a role as a simple actin monomer sequestering protein. Its biosynthetic regulation is consistent with what one would expect for a protein whose function is to set and maintain the G-/F-actin ratio. Indeed, it is the proteins of the ADF/cofilin family that are necessary to turn over the actin in the tails of Listeria monocytogenes, the intracellular bacterium that utilizes actin assembly to propel itself around the cytoplasm of infected cells (69). We propose that through both posttranslational and biosynthetic regulation, ADF plays a role in regulating actin polymer levels in C2 cells.


FOOTNOTES

*   This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health Grants GM35126 and TW01856 (to J. R. B.) and an NHMRC grant (to P. G.).The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
   NHMRC Senior Research Fellow.
par    Performed much of this work at the CMRI, Sydney, Australia, during a sabbatical leave from Colorado State University. To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 970-491-6096; FAX: 970-491-0494; E-mail: jbamburg{at}vines.colostate.edu.
1   The abbreviations used are: beta sm-actin, a single mutant actin in which Gly-244 is converted to Asp; ADF, actin depolymerizing factor; DTT, dithiothreitol; PAGE, polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; MOPS, 3-(N-morpholino)propanesulfonate; MES, 2-(N-morpholino)ethanesulfonic acid; Lat A, latrunculin A.

REFERENCES

  1. Ben Ze'ev, A., Farmer, S. R., and Penman, S. (1979) Cell 17, 319-325 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Leavitt, J., Ng, S.-Y., Aebi, U., Varma, M., Latter, G., Burbeck, S., Kedes, L., and Gunning, P. (1987) Mol. Cell. Biol. 7, 2457-2466 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Pachter, J. S., Yen, T. J., and Cleveland, D. W. (1987) Cell 51, 283-293 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Yen, T. J., Machlin, P. S., and Cleveland, D. W. (1988) Nature 334, 580-585 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Theodorakis, N. G., and Cleveland, D. W. (1992) Mol. Cell. Biol. 12, 791-799 [Abstract]
  6. Lloyd, C., Schevzov, G., and Gunning, P. (1992) J. Cell Biol. 117, 787-797 [Abstract]
  7. Serpinskaya, A. S., Denisenko, O. N., Gelfand, V. I., and Bershadsky, A. D. (1990) FEBS Lett. 277, 11-14 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Bershadsky, A. D., Glück, U., Denisenko, O. N., Sklyarova, T. V., Spector, I., and Ben-Ze'ev, A. (1995) J. Cell Sci. 108, 1183-1193 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Reuner, K. H., Wiederhold, M., Dunker, P., Just, I., Bohle, R. M., Kröger, M., and Katz, N. (1995) Eur. J. Biochem. 230, 32-37 [Abstract]
  10. Schevzov, G., Lloyd, C., Hailstones, D., and Gunning, P. (1993) J. Cell Biol. 121, 811-821 [Abstract]
  11. Schevzov, G., Lloyd, C., and Gunning, P. (1995) DNA Cell Biol. 14, 689-700 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Prasad, G. L., Fuldner, R. A., and Cooper, H. L. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 7039-7043 [Abstract]
  13. Rodriguez-Fernandez, J. L., Geiger, B., Salmon, D., and Ben Ze'ev, A. (1992) Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 22, 127-134 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Samuels, M., Ezzell, R. M., Cardozo, T. J., Critchley, D. R., Coll, J. L., and Adamson, E. D. (1993) J. Cell Biol. 121, 909-921 [Abstract]
  15. Glück, U., Rodriguez-Fernandez, J. L., Pankov, R., and Ben Ze'ev, A. (1992) Exp. Cell Res. 202, 477-486 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Cunningham, C. C., Stossel, T. P., and Kwiatkowski, D. J. (1991) Science 251, 1233-1236 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Condeelis, J. (1993) Annu. Rev. Cell Biol. 9, 411-444 [CrossRef]
  18. Stossel, T. P. (1993) Science 260, 1086-1094 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Fechheimer, M., and Zigmond, S. H. (1993) J. Cell Biol. 123, 1-5 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Moon, A., and Drubin, D. (1995) Mol. Biol. Cell 6, 1423-1431 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Sun, H.-Q., Kwiatkowska, K., and Yin, H. (1995) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 7, 102-110 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Millonig, R., Salvo, H., and Aebi, U. (1988) J. Cell Biol. 106, 785-796 [Abstract]
  23. Yu, F.-X., Johnston, P. A., Südhof, T. C., and Yin, H. L. (1990) Science 250, 16545-16552
  24. Fowler, V. M., Sussman, M. A., Miller, P. G., Flucher, B. E., and Daniels, M. P. (1993) J. Cell Biol. 120, 411-420 [Abstract]
  25. Bamburg, J. R., Minamide, L. S., Morgan, T. E., Hayden, S. M., Giuliano, K. A., and Koffer, A. (1991) Methods Enzymol. 196, 125-140 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Adams, M. E., Minamide, L. S., Duester, G., and Bamburg, J. R. (1990) Biochemistry 29, 7414-7420 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Abe, H., Endo, T., Yamamoto, K., and Obinata, T. (1990) Biochemistry 29, 7420-7425 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Pardee, J. D., and Spudich, J. A. (1982) Methods Cell Biol. 24, 271-289 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Pardee, J. D., and Bamburg, J. R. (1979) Biochemistry 18, 2245-2252 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Minamide, L. S., and Bamburg, J. R. (1990) Anal. Biochem. 190, 66-70 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Schevzov, G., Lloyd, C., and Gunning, P. (1992) J. Cell Biol. 117, 775-785 [Abstract]
  32. Greenberg, M. E. (1988) in Current Protocols in Molecular Biology (Ausubel, F. M., Brent, R., Kingston, R. E., Moore, D. D., Smith, J. A., Seidman, J. G., and Strahl, K., eds), pp. 4.101-4.108, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York
  33. Celano, P., Berchtold, C., and Casero, R. A., Jr. (1989) BioTechniques 7, 942-944 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Chomczynski, P., and Sacchi, N. (1987) Anal. Biochem. 162, 156-159 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Wessel, D., and Flügge, U. I. (1984) Anal. Biochem. 138, 141-143 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Laemmli, U. K. (1970) Nature 227, 680-685 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Towbin, H., Staehelin, T., and Gordon, H. (1979) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 76, 4350-4354 [Abstract]
  38. Bamburg, J. R., and Bray, D. (1987) J. Cell Biol. 105, 2817-2825 [Abstract]
  39. Abe, H., Ohshima, S., and Obinata, T. (1989) J. Biochem. (Tokyo) 106, 696-702 [Abstract]
  40. Hawkins, M., Pope, B., Maciver, S. K., and Weeds, A. G. (1993) Biochemistry 32, 9985-9993 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Feinberg, A. P., and Vogelstein, B. (1983) Anal. Biochem. 132, 6-13 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  42. Sambrook, J., Fritsch, E. F., and Maniatis, T. (1989) Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, 2nd Ed, Vol. 3, p. B15, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
  43. Blikstad, I., Markey, F., Carlsson, L., Persson, T., and Lindberg, U. (1978) Cell 15, 935-943 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  44. Heacock, C. S., and Bamburg, J. R. (1983) Anal. Biochem. 135, 22-36 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. Morgan, T. E., Lockerbie, R. O., Minamide, L. S., Browning, M. D., and Bamburg, J. R. (1993) J. Cell Biol. 122, 623-633 [Abstract]
  46. O'Farrell, P. Z., Goodman, H. M., and O'Farrell, P. H. (1977) Cell 12, 1133-1141 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Spector, I., Shochet, N. R., Kashman, Y., and Groweiss, A. (1983) Science 219, 493-495 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  48. Moriyama, K., Iida, K., and Yahara, I. (1996) Genes to Cells 1, 73-86 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Moriyama, K., Nishida, E., Yonezawa, N., Sakai, H., Matsumoto, S., Iida, K., and Yahara, I. (1990) J. Biol. Chem. 265, 5768-5773 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Hatanaka, H., Ogura, K., Moriyama, K., Ichikawa, S., Yahara, I., and Inagaki, F. (1996) Cell 85, 1047-1055 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  51. Hayden, S. M., Miller, P. S., Brauweiler, A., and Bamburg, J. R. (1993) Biochemistry 32, 9994-10004 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  52. Yonezawa, N., Nishida, E., and Sakai, H. (1985) J. Biol. Chem. 260, 14410-14412 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Agnew, B. J., Minamide, L. S., and Bamburg, J. R. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 17582-17587 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Samstag, Y., Eckerskorn, C., Wesselborg, S., Henning, S., Wallich, R., and Meuer, S. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91, 4494-4498 [Abstract]
  55. Davidson, M. M. L., and Haslam, R. J. (1994) Biochem. J. 301, 41-47 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  56. Saito, T., Lamy, F., Roger, P. P., Lecocq, R., and Dumont, J. E. (1994) Exp. Cell Res. 212, 49-61 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  57. Kanamori, T., Hayakawa, T., Suzuki, M., and Titani, K. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 8061-8067 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. Matsuzaki, F., Matsumoto, S., Yahara, I., Yonezawa, N., Nishida, E., and Sakai, H. (1988) J. Biol. Chem. 263, 11564-11568 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Iida, K., Matsumoto, S., and Yahara, I. (1992) Cell Struct. Funct. 17, 39-46 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  60. Abe, H., Nagaoka, R., and Obinata, T. (1993) Exp. Cell Res. 206, 1-10 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  61. Nishida, E., Iida, K., Yonezawa, N., Koyasu, S., Yahara, I., and Sakai, H. (1987) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 84, 5262-5266 [Abstract]
  62. Ono, S., Abe, H., Nagaoka, R., and Obinata, T. (1993) J. Muscle Res. Cell Motil. 14, 195-204 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  63. Samstag, Y., Dreizler, E.-M., Ambach, A., Sczakiel, G., and Meuer, S. C. (1996) J. Immunol. 156, 4167-4173 [Abstract]
  64. Shimizu, N., and Obinata, T. (1986) J. Biochem. (Tokyo) 99, 751-759 [Abstract]
  65. Ono, S., Minami, N., Abe, H., and Obinata, T. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 15280-15286 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  66. Shinagawa, Y., Abe, H., Saiga, K., and Obinata, T. (1993) Zool. Sci. 10, 611-618
  67. Hayakawa, K., Minami, N., Ono, S., Ogasawara, Y., Totsuka, T., Abe, H., Tanaka, T., and Obinata, T. (1993) J. Biochem. (Tokyo) 114, 582-587 [Abstract]
  68. Aizawa, H., Sutoh, K., and Yahara, I. (1996) J. Cell Biol. 132, 335-344 [Abstract]
  69. Rosenblatt, J., Agnew, B. J., Abe, H., Bamburg, J. R., and Mitchison, T. J. (1997) J. Cell Biol., in press

©1997 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.